Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said yesterday that Osama bin Laden should get "due process of law." Later in the day he indicated that bin Laden should be "caught and killed." Neither of these statements is particularly surprising in and of themselves, but taken together they don't seem to mesh. Here's why.
The concept of due process dates back to 1215 A.D. and the Magna Carta, "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." In the United States, this concept of the "law of the land" was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that guarantee that no person will be denied "life, liberty or property without due process of law."
"Due process of law" means that a suspect shall have access to all the options our legal system offers regardless of what we may think of him. In a criminal case, for example, that means the right to a speedy trial, access to a lawyer, an opportunity to review evidence, the right to appeals, the right to confront witnesses and many other benefits. In short, due process guarantees that the procedure is above reproach and that the standards of our distinguished legal system are maintained at every turn.
By contrast, the "caught and killed" process means you catch the guy and then you kill him (how else could one interpret it?) Under that scenario quaint legal ideals don't mean much. Clearly, catch and kill and due process sit at opposite ends of the process spectrum.
Later, a Thompson spokesperson introduced another element when he explained the need to get information from bin Laden. He then clarified that bin Laden should get Guantanamo rules and be afforded due process though a military court. This appears to be a middle position between a constitutionally protected trial and catch and kill (bearing in mind that a military trial may meet the due process standards of a civilian trial but the Supreme Court rejected the proposed system.
Whatever the court -- civilian or military -- wouldn't it be better to afford him the greatest "due process of law" and show the rest of the world that we are serious about respect for the law? In other words, Fred, in my humble opinion you had it right the first time.
For more legal explanations about current issues go to www.whywellwin.com.