For a time, I wasn’t wholly sure what my stance was on trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian trials, or mirandizing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. I really understand both sides of the argument. On the one hand, Republicans point out that if we’re at war with Al Qaeda then they should be treated like enemy combatants, not civilian criminals. The Democrats go on about justice, fairness, and letting the world see the American system as having said values. This is also a fair point. Though, any honest Democrat would admit that the world will laugh at us if we acquit KSM and then don’t let him go free. So, in the end, it is theoretically possible that Democrats would make the United States look worse than Republicans. Likely not though, the evidence is too strong against KSM. The problem with this debate is a common one in this country: both sides are presenting their arguments and ignoring another one that neither side is willing to make, for political reasons.
That other argument has its foundations in a realization of reality. Simply put, the threat Americans face from terrorism has been drastically overblown. The politicians can’t say that, because soft on security would hang around their necks until the next election when they’d get booted out of office. But that fact doesn’t make it any less true. More people die in this country from homicide annually than have died in the past two decades from terrorism (I’m discounting the war deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq). If I were to include those deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan of America’s troops, then I’d have to amend that statements to say that over the past two years more Americans have been murdered than have died from terrorism over the past two decades. My point stands either way you look at it.
The terrorist threat’s been exaggerated then. So what? Well, I submit that the biggest threat terrorists pose to us is to make us significantly change our lifestyles and laws to deal with them. Some common-sense steps are good, like having proper security at airports. I don’t for a moment want to give the impression that I’m suggesting we give up the attempts to forestall them. However, it is also true that while we can delay them, you can’t truly stop terrorists as they’re willing to die. The only reason the Abdulmutallab bombing wasn’t successful is because of a mistake he and his Al Qaeda in Yemen helpers made. America dodged the bullet on that one. The same applies to the shoe bomber, Richard Reid. It wasn’t brave passengers that made those attempted terrorist attacks unsuccessful. America did nothing to prevent them. They just screwed up. So we as a nation must be careful in being willing to give up our way of life, freedoms and rights to stop terrorists. Sometimes it’s worth it, sometimes not.
The reason the likes of KSM should be tried in civilian courts isn’t just to not elevate them to the level of warriors. Does anyone honestly think for a moment that they’ll be elevated to martyr level only if we treat them like enemy soldiers? Which court we try them in has no effect on that. Nor is the reason we should try them in civilian courts to give an image of justice and fairness to the world at large. The testimonies and evidence will make it clear how badly we treated this guy. Some of it will likely be used as terrorist propaganda. And our unwillingness to release him should he be found “not guilty” makes that whole concept a joke. The Republican argument that trying him in a military tribunal shows that we’re at war is likewise poorly thought out. Does anyone in the world outside of America think President Obama isn’t prosecuting the War on Afghanistan like a war? No. Only Republicans in this country insist he’s been soft on terrorists. Those who have nothing to gain politically by leveling such a ridiculous charge say he’s taking it seriously as a war. There’s no way that trying KSM in a civilian court will endanger the worldwide perception that America is fighting a war in Afghanistan.
KSM should be tried in a civilian court because that’s what we do with terrorists. We treat them like criminals. It’s what we’ve always done, it’s what we should keep doing. President Bush might’ve made a mistake when he told Americans that we should all go shopping to combat terrorism (or that’s what we all took him to mean), but the sentiment behind that is absolutely correct. Terrorism is there to interrupt our lives, to make us change everything, to make us live in fear. Showing we’re not afraid, that we will go about our lives regardless of what these bastards think of the way we live them, that stands up to them. Changing everything to deal with what is, ultimately, a small threat, is to cede a certain level of defeat to them. They want to change our society. Let’s not let them.
That is also my argument for mirandizing Abdulmutallab (by the way, I encourage people to not call in the Christmas Day attack or the Christmas Day bombing because that plays right into their hands. They want us to think of it that way, as an attack on a certain day). Liberals need to recognize certain facts here. Prime among them is the fact that he was cooperating before he was mirandized, and then he clammed up. It wasn’t until a few weeks later, with the help of his family, we got him to talk again. However, other than as a fear tactic, does anyone truly believe that there was another imminent attack in the works he could’ve provided us information to stop? If you did, you were wrong.
As a matter of fact, according to a Harvard study, 45,000 Americans die yearly because they can’t afford the health care needed to keep living. That’s more than double the number who’ve died from terrorist attacks since the end of the Cold War. In fact, that’s more than quadruple the number. So let’s get some perspective, shall we? Terrorism’s biggest threat isn’t to our lives, but to our way of life. And it is for that reason that KSM should be tried in civilian courts and Abdulmutallab was rightly mirandized.
