Misblog

Proponents of Military Commission fundamentally argue that terrorists and other designated alien enemy combatants should not enjoy access to the same criminal justice system as non-terrorists. They imagine this bifurcation will aid them in their efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorism.

Tactically they are correct? Commissions with unique "terrorists rules and procedures" can be crafted which limit or deny access to media, habeas corpus, evidence, appeals, representatives, and investigative tools. Of course, this will give the American prosecutors a tactically advantage. *

However, strategically the proponents of Military Commissions could not be more incorrect **. Each Military Commission using the unique "terrorist rules and procedures" is evidence of oppression. The very oppression radical Islam asserts justifies their preference for living under the rule-of-god and not the rule-of-law!

It may be counterintuitive, but America must provide each terrorist with access to exactly the same criminal justice system enjoyed by every American. Only by providing "equal justice under the law" can we truncate radical Islam's strategic arguments.

Based on the above reasoning I oppose legislation like S 3861 - Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006 which set-up Military Commissions for terrorists’ trials. I support using our existing criminal justice system to conduct all terrorist criminal trials.

-----notes-----

* It is unfortunate that America must prosecute each terrorist in its name. Currently, this is the only realistic alternative. This makes it all the more imperative that we use the same criminal justice system enjoyed by all Americans.

** The Bush administration has not demonstrated an ability to think strategically with respect to terrorism. As a result much of its tactical actions are failing, too. -