re: #347 lawhawk

In many of the cases of terrorists tried and convicted domestically, the evidence was clear cut. Shoe bomber Richard Reid being but one example. He was caught trying to blow up a plane with explosives in his shoes.

That’s the closest example to the Mutallab case, and one that shows that the federal court system can work to deal with those kinds of cases.

Things get a whole lot more difficult when you deal with terrorists caught overseas that weren’t Mirandized and/or captured on the battlefield without regard to law enforcement considerations. Evidence isn’t exactly a priority in a battlefield situation (and nor should it be when the idea is to kill the enemy than prepare him for trial).

That is, indeed, a problem. Although as signatories to the Geneva Treaties, we ought to let those govern such cases, simply on the grounds that if we’re going to call it the “War on Terror” then we ought to be applying the rules already in place that govern conduct during warfare.

As such, the nebulous status of the “enemy combatant” gets tossed, those held retain their right of habeus corpus, and techniques like torture are strictly prohibited. For that matter, any extensive questioning at all is prohibited, beyond establishment of name and rank.

Frankly, I’d much rather have him face ordinary criminal charges - including the ability to plea bargain. I’m certain we’d be happy to offer, say, prayer rugs and a general indication of the direction of Mecca, say, in exchange for whatever slight information someone like this might possess.

The alternative, as I see it, is indefinite detention, suspension of our entire civilization’s legal framework for the last thousand years or so, and…nothing else.