The Justice Department has decided to prosecute Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev through the criminal justice system in civilian court.
That comes after several key Republicans—Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example—argued that he should be classified as an enemy combatant. That would allow investigators to hold him and question him indefinitely.
McCain, Graham and others argue that Tsarnaev is a terrorist, potentially with Al Qaeda links, who can provide more information about the plot and any other accomplices before he gets a lawyer and refuses to talk.
It’s an understandable argument, especially since the bombing demonstrates once again that the battlefield in the fight against terror extends from the far reaches of Afghanistan to the streets of America’s cities.
But the Justice Department chose the wiser route. That’s the best way to handle him, and for several practical reasons.
The federal courts have been remarkably efficient at trying terror cases. Human Rights First reports that federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11. Military commissions have only convicted a handful of suspects.
Additionally, running Tsarnaev through the criminal courts does not necessarily mean we’ll get no information from him. A good defense attorney may counsel him to cooperate with prosecutors to try to avoid the death penalty. Or, if Tsarnaev doesn’t cooperate, there’s a good chance he’ll receive the ultimate punishment for his crimes.
But there is a much larger issue at stake.
The U.S. Constitution protects people suspected of committing crimes in this country. The Boston terrorist, just like the Wall Street embezzler and the common street criminal, all begin with a presumption of innocence.
The burden is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to show that he or she is innocent. Meanwhile, the country and the rest of the world can follow the proceedings in open court.
Terror triggers increased security. We are going to see more security cameras and a larger police presence at public gatherings. Expect more checks of backpacks. These and other measures may be an appropriate response to Boston, but they are even more of a reason to ensure that our rights as citizens are not eroded.
It’s a little too tempting when the nation is outraged by an evil act to substitute emotion and convenience for the rule of law. Instead, this is the very moment when the country should rededicate itself to our bedrock principles.