Terrorists in U.S. courts

One of the cornerstones of our republic is the protections provided to our citizens in the criminal court system.  The rights granted in our laws guaranty that someone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  We go as far as to impart those same protections to foreign nationals that commit crimes on our soil.

The rights begin at the moment someone is apprehended for a crime. Law enforcement officials from all over the country read the Miranda Warning to any suspect taken into custody. Police and FBI training provides detailed lessons on the correct steps to be taken when a suspect is arrested to both protect their rights and the rights of the public to a proper and legal trial.

Residents of the White House, from both parties, have directed criminals suspect of terrorist acts to be prosecuted in American courts, however, only the current administration has insisted on trying terrorists in U.S. courts for crimes committed outside the U.S.

After 911, the Bush administration set up military tribunals operating out of Guantanamo Bay to prosecute “foreign combatants,” arrested on the battlefield; this also included members of terrorist organizations caught anywhere outside the U.S. Several court rulings on the military courts were resolved by Congress several years ago to comply with the courts concerns; then the Obama administration moved in.

U.S. courts were never intended to try people arrested on foreign shores; the rigid restrictions placed upon law enforcement on the protection of evidence, reasonable search and seizure, and the right to legal counsel before making a statement cannot be guaranteed to someone arrested in the unlawful state of war or within another country. Failure to meet the necessary strictures of our legal system risks the security of the American public which might be sacrificed upon the altar of proper U.S. legal etiquette.

One of the reasons we offer the same legal protections for foreign nationals arrested in the U.S. as we do for all U.S. citizens is because we treat all people within our borders equally. Never have we attempted to bring a foreign national into the U.S. for a crime committed outside our borders and granted them the same rights we would a guest or citizen upon our shores. Mr. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder believe we should grant the same rights and protections to terrorists that send women into market places with bomb strapped to their bodies to kill indiscriminately as we would a visiting Nun that jay-walks in New York.

Our legal system was intended to protect “We the people,” and those who lawfully enter our country, not those who commit crimes of war in another country; and make no mistake, terrorism is a crime of war. Military tribunals provide a means to orderly prosecute those who commit crimes against this country that are apprehended overseas, so why would anyone want to offer these criminals rights reserved for our citizens and our guests? The answer is simple: the liberals believe in a one world view; a global government where crimes are crimes against all humanity and the nationalistic view of our founders is just ‘so 16^th century.’ Or could it be that these same liberals know that those arrested overseas will often be released by our criminal court and that suits their “blame America first” attitude?

We accept that our legal system isn’t perfect. The requirements of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” places a very high burden upon our prosecutors, as well it should. Creating the same near-perfect requirement upon crimes committed in the uncontrolled environment of another country in often chaotic circumstances is a recipe for disaster. The U.S. spends millions upon millions of dollars to apprehend high value terrorist targets to then allow cases against them thrown out of U.S. courts because the often confusing fog of military actions isn’t conducive to the same level of evidence protection or collection as in a 7-11 in Chicago.

Liberals will say that a crime is a crime. This is such a narrow and uneducated view as to be unworthy of a reply. The public has come out clearly against using American courts to try terrorists. Regardless of party affiliation, a clear majority of the public would rather terrorists be killed on the battlefield than prosecuted, released and return to the battlefield as they have done in many instances since 2002; but terrorists will be captured and cannot be summarily executed.

Our laws allow us to hold enemy combatants taken during war until such time that hostilities are terminated, yet we find ourselves in a new type of conflict that may well extend for many decades. Those on the left will never be able to accept holding people caught on the battlefield indefinitely and that’s where military trials, rather than civilian ones are the best option.