Try Terrorists In Court? No Way!

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the military tribunals proposed for accused terrorists.

U.S. citizens, and certain others who are not citizens, are covered by the Constitution. Prisoners of war, such as German or Japanese military personnel during WWII, are covered by the Geneva Conventions, and technically only the signatory nations are bound by and covered by its provisions. However, neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions cover “enemy combatants,” terrorists and others who belong to no formal military, and who fight on behalf of no particular nation.

The Bush administration holds that military tribunals are the proper venue for dealing with these vermin. Others, however, including those who wish to make fighting terrorism as difficult as possible, hold that all people captured or arrested are due equal protection under U.S. laws. They put forth all manner of rationalized justification for that position, including that either the Constitution or the Conventions cover. A reading of each document plainly shows that to be wrong.

Next they say that we are a civilized nation, and even though the enemy combatants would not give our military such generous treatment, the United States ought to hold itself to a higher standard.

There’s a case to be made for the position that suicide bombers who indiscriminately kill innocent bystanders, people who crash airplanes into buildings to kill thousands of innocent people, and other sub-human excrement, are unworthy of justice or compassion. It’s expensive and time consuming to put these animals on trial, and it gives them far more credibility than they ought to have.

Opening the U.S. system of justice to terrorists is just plain stupid.

Technorati Tags: Terrorists, Supreme Court, Justice, Politics