Boston bombing suspect to be tried in civilian court

It is unconstitutional to try an American citizen as an “enemy combatant,” to the dismay of the pundits at Fox Spews. But what’s the constitution among Fox and Friends unless we’re talking the 2nd Amendment?

A civilian trial is as it should be because our regular system of justice should be able to stand on its own even in the event of terrorism. But some people are afraid that someone named a terrorist and thus already convicted in the court of public opinion, will be declared not guilty by a civilian judge or jury. It has already happened in a few terrorism cases. What? That can’t be! He was declared a terrorist. That means he’s guilty!

No, it doesn’t. Innocent until PROVEN guilty has to apply, even in terrorism cases. If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tsarnaev is guilty, he will be convicted. If we toss out our judicial system in these cases, rigging up military kangaroo courts to “guarantee” convictions, then what will be the difference between our system and the Star Chamber or the Spanish Inquisition?

And by the way, Ann Coulter said the widow of Tamerlan Tsarnaev should be put in prison for wearing a hijab. I think Ann Coulter should be put in prison for the BS she emits on Fox. Doesn’t it violate some noise pollution ordinance? No? She has got a First Amendment right to free speech? Well. that same amendment has the freedom of religion clause that Fox Spews likes to ballyhoo when whenever there is a Christian involved. According to that amendment, a Muslim woman can wear her hijab. Western women may consider it a symbol of patriarchal oppression. Muslim women may consider it a religious requirement. The Constitution says to each her own.

Constitutional rights are not just for white conservative Christians. They are for people of color, non-Christians, and even the stupidity that comes out of Ann Coulter’s mouth. Constitutional rights are for ideas that we hate and for people who have been accused of evil. If we change the rules every time someone we don’t like avails himself or herself of the rights those rules provide, we no longer have a system of laws, We no longer have a system. We have the arbitrary decrees of whomever is in power at the moment.

The idea that right is whatever the strongest person says it is, and the ruler is always right because he is the strongest, is a view that goes back at least as far as Plato’s Republic. It is an idea that the United States rejected after the revolution, when the Founders set up a republic rather than a monarchy. The Framers of the Constitution again rejected the idea that “might makes right” when they created the Constitution, with its separation of powers and Bill of Rights.

The PATRIOT Act, the trying of civilians in military tribunals, and terms such as “enemy combatant” endanger the US system of laws. The idea that the press or the president can declare a person or group to be terrorists, and that they are not like other alleged wrongdoers, but must be treated differently, puts us all in danger of being someday declared terrorists. Indeed, that process has already begun, with the characterization of lawful First Amendment protected protest to be low–grade terrorism, the punishment, instead of protection, of whistleblowers against the government and corporations, and the tremendous secrecy of an administration that promised increased transparency.

All people must be able to do anything that is lawful even if we don’t like it. And all people accused of wrongdoing must have the right to be tried and convicted in a court of law, no matter how guilty the rest of us think they are. To have otherwise is to have rule by prejudice rather than principle.

Intrepid Report Associate Editor Kéllia Ramares-Watson, author of the blog Kellia’s Korner, is an independent journalist in Oakland, California. She may be reached at thendofmoney[at]gmail.com.