Why Should We Care Where the Terrorists are Tried?

I suppose in many regards this is a legitimate question and just as emotionally charged as many of the other issues on the table at the moment. You know for a President who was elected on the platform of change and transparency(just a couple of his talking points)it sure feels like there is a huge disconnect in our country between the Administration and the citizens. The issues being debated all seem to have an overwhelming charge of emotion to them that echo a common theme of the general populace feeling unheard, invalidated and generally seen as ignorant and uninformed. So why, as American Citizens, should we care where the terrorists currently held at Gitmo are tried for their terrorist deeds? Regardless of majority opinion, the Administration is hell bent on their agenda and apparently willing to bulldoze any individual, group and overall public opinion for the good of their "cause".

For me the determination of where these terrorists should be tried is a very simple process of asking and answering some relatively simple questions and using these as a litmus test. Are these terrorists criminals? Without a doubt! However there is one extremely important descriptor of "criminals" that is left out in asking the question in this manner: WAR CRIMINALS. So the terrorists are not the type of criminal our judicial system has historically been equipped to try. Our judicial system is designed to fairly judge United States Citizens and ensure their constitutional rights are upheld throughout the process. Thus the next question: Are the terrorists United States Citizens? Answering this question almost makes me feel stupid! A resounding and absolute no! Where in our Constitution does it state the rights afforded to United States Citizens under the Constitution apply universally? No where. However the Administration is now telling us our Constitution is intended to be universal and not just limited to the citizens of the United States. Really? At what point in history did this change occur? It must have been after WW II, Korea and Viet Nam so how did I miss this one? So now we are going to operate our judicial system from a perspective of global judicial theory. I sure hope the international community appreciates the Administration's view of our constitutional make-up becoming the foundation for international law. The next question then: Were the terrorists arrested or apprehended on American soil or in an American Territory? No. The terrorists were apprehended on the battlefield and taken "prisoner of war" as identified enemy combatants. It just struck me! Now I am beginning to see why the Obama Administration is making such a concerted effort to eliminate the use of the terminology "war on terror". Obviously this phrase implies we are at war with an identified enemy that is made up of enemy soldiers whether they wear a standard uniform or not. If we are at war with an identified set of enemy soldiers, those who are captured or apprehended on the battlefield are prisoners of war. If these prisoners of war are accused of committing war crimes, they are mandated to be tried as enemy combatants in a military tribunal type environment. If we are not fighting a war on terror but instead responding to man made disasters or simply addressing an overseas contingent, then we cannot try those apprehended as war criminals but merely simple criminals. Regardless, that still does not address the question of how these non-citizen criminals, apprehended outside of any U.S. Territory should be afforded all the rights given under our Constitution. I simply cannot get past this one! So from a basically logical and empirical point of view, the terrorists should be tried by a military tribunal as enemy combatants during war time. Giving the terrorists all the rights given American Citizens under our Constitution is utterly absurd and ill conceived. Obama wants to be "transparent" to the world and let them see the fairness of our judicial system. Why is Mr. Obama so willing to be transparent to the world yet hides huge Congressional bills behind closed doors? You got it - health care reform.

My oldest adult son asked me this question last Friday: "If the terrorists are tried by military tribunal and put to death, they get what they want - to be martyrs. If they are tried in the United States they get a platform on which to perform and just mock our system and our country; therefore, also getting what they want. So isn't it a win for the terrorists no matter where they are tried?" I think this is a great question because the answer to both is yes. It is a win either way for the terrorists but which choice then is best for the United States? Simply put if the terrorists are tried, convicted and put to death by a military tribunal, there is little to no fan fare, no opportunity for the terrorists to try and advance their position or mock our laws, citizens or way of life. In essence the terrorists die legends in their own minds. Martyrs? In their own minds. I really have no issues with this. It is really no different than a terrorist being killed on the battlefield. They die being their own legend with little to no real consequence. On the other hand, if we try them in the United States and bestow upon them the constitutional rights afforded our own citizens we are only asking for a circus. We have seen this play out before. Our legal system and process becomes an arena for the terrorist to further their personal beliefs and ideologies and completely mock our system of justice. Certainly the Administration has to know this also creates an opportunity for further risk to our country. Why would Al Queda be willing to have high level operatives tried in an American community without attempting to disrupt the hearings through terrorists attacks? Bringing the terrorists on to American soil to be tried puts any community in which they are place at high and significant risk of attack. I cannot see how any one could come to any other conclusion. The risks are simply to high to bring these terrorists to the main land of our country. Why would the Administration even consider giving the terrorists an opportunity to mock our system or put any community at heightened risk?

So I guess in the final analysis, we should care where the terrorists are tried because of the possible outcomes of having them tried on American soil. The terrorists may in fact be found guilty and sentenced to death whether tried by a military tribunal or on American soil. However trying them here only gives them the platform on which to perform and puts communities at extreme risk of terrorist violence. They therefore not only get to broadcast their agenda, they get to be a martyr as well. If tried by military tribunal and are put to death, they end as legends only in their own minds. More importantly the real question left in my mind is what the real agenda of the Administration might be in making this ill conceived, poorly thought out decision to try these terrorists on American soil.