I was planning to write a piece to supplement my last post and argue that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, everyone's favorite underwear bomber, was a perfect example of why utilizing the criminal justice system for terror suspects was the right decision.  However, I discovered that Adam Serwer over at TAPPED already wrote the exact same piece, and wrote it better than I could have done.  So instead of reinventing the wheel, I highly recommend you all check him out.

Additionally, in response to my previous post, my colleague "Angry" Jeff Schneider raised a few excellent questions about the feasibility of trying terror suspects in court.  He first questioned if it was even possible to give prominent terrorists, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a fair trial.  I believe it is.  Jack Goldsmith over at Slate gives a nice run-down of how the legalistic issues, such as an impartial jury, can be solved.  Steven Simon also makes the case that there is sufficient evidence that is unclassified and "clean" (i.e. not obtained through torture or other illegal means) to secure a conviction under standard legal rules.

I think this also speaks to Jeff's final point, about the danger of it become a Stalinist show trial.  I agree that the possibility exists, and it would be a huge problem for the U.S. if the proceedings are perceived that way.  In fact, it would be a national security issue, as I addressed previously.  However, I believe that, once the case goes to court, it will be conducted in accordance with the legal principles of the U.S., which ensures fairness and equality, and that this will be plainly evident to all observers.  If the concern is about perception, even a flawed trial is better than indefinite detention.  In short, I still think trying KSM in a civilian court is the right decision.

  
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and anyone else apprehended and suspected of terrorism should be openly tried in a civilian court. Forget all the legal arguments and debates – this is about national security. The best way to ensure the safety of the U.S. is to give these men their day in court, in public, and allow the legal system to run its course.

You’re all familiar with the arguments against allowing suspected terrorists in court – it will turn into jihadi propaganda, it will compromise intelligence sources, and it limits our ability to interrogate terrorists. Steven Simon does a thorough job demolishing those falsehoods, but even without his well-reasoned defense of the judiciary a higher priority should compel the Obama Administration to send all detainees directly to court.

Despite what some pundits and politicians may tell you, we are not fighting a Global War on Terror. Terrorism is a tactic – how can you declare war on a tactic? Osama bin Laden and his ilk use terrorism, but they are not defined by it. They seek to destroy the U.S., or at the very least curb its power and influence. This is their goal, not terrorism. They cannot do this alone – a few ideologues, no matter how dedicated, are incapable of bringing down a superpower. And they know this. To succeed, they must convince the rest of the world that America is not the benevolent leader it claims to be, but rather another imperialist hegemon bent on conquest and power. In other words, bin Laden and others are fighting a battle of ideas, and terrorism is only one of their many tools to win that battle. If we fail to acknowledge that we are in a war of ideas, not a War Against Terror, we are destined to lose. By detaining and denying people the right to trial, we give undermine our position make ourselves more vulnerable.

When we abandon our ideals – democracy, freedom, and basic human rights – we help Al Qaeda make their case. The best recruiting tools extremists have ever possessed were the photos and stories that emerged from the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. If we want to win this war of ideas, we need to demonstrate that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a tragic mistake, not an indicative behavior. Keeping prisoners locked in military detention without charge or trial reinforces the negative image of the U.S. that bin Laden cultivates and strengthens his position. Fair and open trials send the exact opposite message – America is a just nation of laws and respect, not an imperialist power, and that it is bin Laden who is ideologically bankrupt.

If the Obama Administration is serious about protecting America, then they need to ensure that all detainees receive their day in court. It’s not about the legal minutia; it’s about national security.