O-mama - Opinionated Moms

Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty to charges that he intended to carry out what was planned to be the most deadly suicide mission on US soil since 9-11.  While in custody, Zazi provided information about his bomb plot and about the training he received in Pakistan by al-Qaeda.   He gave details as a first step toward a plea bargain, but prosecutors are hoping to use this information to bring charges against other suspects in the plot.   Authorities in this case are convinced that Zazi is “giving up” information under the legal parameters of the American justice system, which flies in the face of the Republican theory.  

Republicans claim that the administration should be trying terrorist suspects in military and not civilian court, because, they say, military questioning can yield more information from the suspect than questioning by the FBI.   However, the sticky part comes in determining who is a "terrorist" and the difference between a foreign terrorist and a domestic terrorist.  One could argue that a foreigner caught in a war zone, being accused of violent acts against the United States, should be tried in a military tribunal.  However, when an American is caught on US soil and found guilty of plotting a crime, there seems to be justification for trying them in US courts.  Timothy McVeigh was a US citizen found guilty of committing the largest domestic terrorist act in our country's history when he bombed the Oklahoma Federal building in 1995.  He was tried in the American justice system, found guilty and sentenced to death.  Should there a difference if the accused is named Najibullah Zazi...and he was caught before he executed the crime?

Which begs the question: Should military tribunals be used only with foreigners on foreign soil as in the past to prosecute acts of war, or have we crossed into a new era where U.S. nationals committing acts of treason, that is to say crimes against one’s government, should be treated as if committing an act of war and therefore be prosecuted by military tribunals?  Are military tribunals a more “efficient” way of trying such crimes? Or, could it be that a “deal” struck in a civilian court is the only incentive some suspects need to come off with important information?   The question is the source of continuing debate in our post 9-11 world.  In this case, however, grandma might have been right and the sweet deal of a plea was all the honey Zazi needed.  When dealing with terrorism, are we willing to use honey to get more bees or are we risking getting stung?   Let us know what you think on the Terrorism Hot Button.