The multiple life sentences handed down today for "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should come as no surprise to anyone who tracks federal court terrorism cases.
U.S. courts have become notorious for meting out harsh sentences to anyone even remotely connected to terrorism, whether a student who lent his cell phone to a friend who called an al Qaeda member, or dim-witted participants in a plot against U.S. targets cooked up by an undercover FBI agent.
So when U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds ruled that the 25-year-old Nigerian would be serving multiple life sentences for trying to set off a bomb strapped to his underwear, it was the obvious outcome for someone who had tried -- and fortunately failed -- to kill some 289 passengers on a commercial airliner bound for Detroit. In U.S. law, incompetence is no excuse.
What's odd about this case is actually what no one's talking about now -- all the politicos who bashed the Obama administration for bringing this case to federal court in the first place.
Remember Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who called it "a strategic and tactical mistake in the War on Terror to try Abdulmutallab in civilian court"? "He should have been interrogated by the military and tried by military commission," Graham said. Given that the military commissions still haven't tried the 9/11 defendants, it's hard to imagine how long it would have taken them to get around to this case.
Then there was Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who said: "Mirandizing the Christmas Day terrorist mere hours after he was taken into custody was profoundly irresponsible... it shows a complete failure to comprehend the role that valuable intelligence can play in saving innocent American lives." In fact, Abdulmutallab was only read his Miranda rights after he stopped talking to FBI agents. And I don't remember Cornyn complaining when the Obama administration successfully killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, whose role in the attempted bombing they discovered by lawfully questioning Abdulmutallab.
These were just two among the chorus of critics who eagerly trashed the American justice system as too soft on terrorism for providing suspects basic rights. Their view seems to be -- though they likely won't mention it today -- that the United States government has no business trying a suspected terrorist in the U.S. federal justice system, because it can't be trusted to convict him.
Of course, a guaranteed conviction before anyone's investigated the facts isn't what's supposed to come out of any credible justice system. Terrorism charges are supposed to result in a thorough investigation that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion. That's how we can maintain that we're better than dictatorships and terrorists.
But there are still many U.S. lawmakers who don't believe in the American tradition of justice and want to see all terrorism cases shunted off into off-shore military commissions where, they believe, conviction is certain. Never mind that federal courts have convicted more than 400 terrorists and their supporters since 9/11, while the military commissions, which keep changing their own rules, have convicted only six. That's not surprising: military commissions are intended to be ad-hoc courts set up on a battlefield in emergency circumstances where no regularly-constituted courts are available. They lack the consistent precedent, procedures and experience that are the hallmark of a centuries-old standing justice system. Still, for what appear to be purely political reasons, some lawmakers continue to insist the military commissions system is superior, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The controversy came to a head in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, signed reluctantly by the president this past New Year's Eve. Under the new law, as interpreted by its proponents, terrorism suspects like Abdulmutallab would be forced into military custody, absent a signed waiver delivered to Congress from the president.
Had that happened when he was arrested, Abdulmutallab would likely still be sitting in Guantanamo Bay without charges, let alone a conviction and life sentence. After all, the five 9/11 defendants still haven't been prosecuted more than ten years after committing their crimes.
The United States has plenty of problems to focus on right now, from global recession to war in Afghanistan and nuclear-charged tensions in the Middle East. As we can see from today's sentence of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, U.S. federal courts not being sufficiently tough on terrorism isn't one of them.
Follow Daphne Eviatar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/deviatar
"Underwear bomber": Quran instructs to kill
That's joke right? Nobody is talking about it because nobody cares. We're glad to see a tough sentence. For many it's not tough enough. The guy doesn't deserve to see the light of day ever again.
People making a big deal of it is kind of ridiculous.
Just exactly what was this man's sentence?
While it's fair to criticize the US's bizarre obsession with using military courts, and even war, to deal with regular criminal acts, it's also very reasonable to jail an attempted mass murderer for life after a fair trial.
The cell phone lender seems to be the only one of these criminal cases mentioned where there could be a problem, and I suspect the prosecution disputed the existence of `the friend'.
His recruiter and teacher Al-Awlaki plus OBL and thousands of other Jihadsit terrorists received their just sentences.
The popularity of Al Qada in Muslim world has plummeted.
Investment in U.S. security and military infrastructure is paying off.
Let's continue good work.
Trying some in GITMO is much different. Even Obama and Holder both came to the conclusion that some of those may have to be sent to military commissions, some may be held without trial.
The issue is far more complex than you describe and hence difficult for a lefty idealist to understand!!