Pardon me if I am rehashing something that has already been brought up, but I find it very odd that Rand would do this. All that I have read leads me to believe that Terrorist should be tried in Civilian courts, and I stop short of saying that Rand Paul is ignorant of the law. I don't think he is. But is this position taken simply because he feels he is unelectable otherwise, or is held out of a reasoned thought?
Just curious.
SOL
Depends on the situation... if the terrorist is
not a US citizen and is apprehended abroad, I think it is completely reasonable to try them in a military tribunal. We are, in essence, at war with Al-Qaeda and affiliate organizations, so it is a reasonable thing if they are captured abroad.
IF they are not US citizens but they are captured in the United States, as non-state actors, I would say try them in a civilian court.
And if they are US citizens, no matter where they are, they are under the protection of the Constitution (see: Al-Awlaki).
The difficulty in dealing with terrorists is that they are
non-state actors and therefore, we have to try and apply the rules of war when dealing with them in one context, and the rules of criminal justice when we deal with them in another. But if we are just in our application of our own laws and standards, and we do not confuse the two contexts, we can do it in a way that protects our citizens' rights and also fights the war as well as possible.
