Thursday, January 7, 2010

Convict the Bum in Civil Court

According to Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it will be a dangerous mistake if the underwear bomber is tried in a civilian court.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is accused of attempting to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253, with explosives hidden in his underwear on Christmas Day, December 25, 2009 as the airbus approached Detroit.

The Obama Administration is wanting to bring Abdulmutallab to trial in a civilian court although many Republicans oppose the administration’s plan and would prefer he be treated as a enemy combatant in the war against terror.

I seem to have a little trouble with those who think his detainment should be handled by the military with the presumption that he would be tried in a military tribunal.

I have no problem with those captured in military operations being handled by the military and think that it is the proper action. Those captured on the “battlefield” as it were in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere should not be afforded the privilege our our legal system and therefore I strongly oppose bringing prisoners from GITMO to the mainland for trial as Obama wants to do. They are not US citizens and were captured as part of our war effort and should be treated as such.

However, I think the arrest of Abdulmutallab is different and I would favor a civilian trial. I have concern that it would be a slippery slope (as lawyers like to say) toward the possibility of eroding our Constitutionally protected liberties. If he is striped of civil liberties and is treated as an enemy combatant I am concerned that the same could happen to others who are critical of our middle east policy.

Individuals, such as former presidential candidate Ron Paul, and other less known figures who are outspoken in exposing the foolishness of sending American troops into the internal affairs of foreign nations may be considered working against the best interest of the nation. In such a scenario, an aggressive prosecutor could make the claim that they too are an active participant (enemy) in our war on terror and face a military trial void of Constitutional protected liberties.

Let the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, be tried in a civil court where I am confident he will be convicted. He should not be given the "honor" and "dignity" that is afforded a soldier in battle. He is a common thug, criminal and was a potential mass murderer.


Anonymous said...

hasn't al queda (not sure of spelling) taken responsibility for this action. hasn't obama stated we are at war with them. he shouldn't be given a civil trial. he should have a military court and be done with it. were germans in ww2 captured here on american soil given a civil trial. sure they were in uniform, but these guys today don't wear uniforms.

Anonymous said...

agreed, Mutellab what he's called should be tried in a civil, he ain't a soldier just some idiot who caught up in jihad crap. He is looking at life in prison. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Anonymous said...

He is a de facto soldier in the combatant force known as Al Queda.

He attaempted an act of war upon the citizens of the United States of America in American air space. If he is tried in civil court too much information will be surrendered by the state under the rules of "discovery". Ship him to Gitmo and let our military handle the jihadist extremist mercenaries who fight in the name of Allah.

Anonymous said...

I think Pastor Robb is right on target. There is no doubt that this guy is a military combatant and I don't think Pastor Robb would disagree with that. But I have the same fear as Pastor Robb. Could they claim David Duke or other White Nationalists are ideological supporters of the terrorist network simply because they oppose America fighting wars for Israel and thereby be stripped of their civil rights protections. While most Conservatives, through their anger are wanting the guy to be handled by the military, they aren’t thinking of the slipper slope.

Anonymous said...

It's only a matter of time before white supremacist are treated as terrorist.

Anonymous said...

They already are, any form violence used to strike fear in the hearts of others is terrorism.
Burning a cross on someone's lawn... come on you can't say that isn't terrorism.

Thomas Robb said...

Yes, burning a cross on someone's front lawn is terrorism and is as it should be against the law. You have been watching too much television is you think the Klan is doing any such think and you are being foolish to make this asumption.
However, even though it is terrorism, the person convicted of such should not be disenfranchised of his constitutionally protected liberties and therefore he should be tried in civil court and not by the military.
I might want to add that 34,000 white women sexually assaulted by black men every year is also terrorism.

NorwegianHeat said...

I agree, civilian court is where this case belongs. Good use of insight--if excuses can be made to bring civilians (no matter how heinous the crime or attempted crime they are accused of) to trial in military court, then it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that anyone could see their rights striped in similar fashion.

"I might want to add that 34,000 white women sexually assaulted by black men every year is also terrorism."

Mmmm, not really sure about that one, unless same-race assaults are considered terrorism as well. There's no reason to apply a double-standard to sex-crimes. Sexual attacks on any woman by any man is a deplorable act, but if you think that black men are raping white women out of some anti-white agenda, you're creating a war that isn't there. You're assuming that all 34,000 or so cases involve black men wishing to rape white women do so out of spite for the white race--that the sexual satisfaction you would assume as the motive for such a crime takes a back seat to a deeper hatred of white people. With the numbers you're reporting, you're obviously looking at statistics, which are very impersonal by nature. Since you can't know the personal motivations of these sick individuals by looking at numbers alone, you can't claim they're doing it out of hate for the white race (even if this may apply in some of the cases). If these individuals are declaring hatred of whites as the cause of their actions, then your claims of terrorism would be better justified, but without knowing the minds of the perpetrators, any claim to ulterior motives you make is no more than personal speculation. The problem with this is that you're using your own opinions--not fact--to further justify racial conflict.

On the other hand, if the "terrorism" label is evenly applied to ALL cases involving rape, no matter what races are involved, then I'd be more than willing to accept your claim, as any rape is a truly terrorizing experience for the victim.