An American Trial

Steven Grant, in his Permanent Damage column this week, lays out the reasons why the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in Manhattan is as much a trial of U.S. ideals as of the man himself, and I think he does it as well as can be said:

Aspiring Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee started rattling sabers at Barack Obama recently, and is trying to get Republicans to pay more attention to him than to Sarah Palin, by warning that the DoJ's decision to put accused 9-11 terrorists Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and cohorts on trial in Manhattan will destroy Obama's re-election chances if things don't go "as expected." An editorial in the local conservative paper, THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, this past Monday, denounces the whole idea that "dangerous foreign terrorists who seek to destroy the United States now get the same constitutional protections afforded American citizens" and the usual pundits are all leaping on the same bandwagon. Not that they haven't been there before, through the history of Guantanamo Base as terrorist prison camp.

Admittedly, there are some reasons for concern. Assuming, though it has always been something of a jump, that al-Qaeda or sympathetic terror groups even have the capability, the trial makes Manhattan courts a viable target for a new attack. Trials potentially give Khalid etc. a forum to express noxious views. On the other side of the coin, can 9-11 terrorists already convicted in everything but name even get a fair trial in Manhattan, only a few blocks from the remains of the World Trade Center.

But it strikes me as weird both that the Right Wing is taking this particular tack on this issue and that no one is bothering to explain the real reason why, yes, even terrorists deserve the protections of the Constitution. So allow me.

Basically, if you don't think the terrorists deserve a trial, you're not a real American.

Obviously, there's a lot more and I urge you to go and read the full column.