Steve Benen @ Maddowblog notes that Mr. Trump is once again participating in the GOP echo that people who commit violent crimes on American soil should somehow be classified as combatants:
As Rachel [Maddow] has explained on the show, the purpose of the designation is to deny suspects Miranda warnings and prevent the appointment of defense counsel – despite, you know, the U.S. Constitution.
If this sounds familiar, there’s a good reason for that: every time there’s an incident like this, Lindsey Graham and his ideological allies almost reflexively roll out the “enemy combatant” argument. Unfortunately, the idea isn’t improving with age.
Just to clarify the situation, I think someone should ask Senator Graham the following question:
Should Timothy McVeigh, noted terrorist, have also been classified as an enemy combatant?
Mr. McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. Why? From Wikipedia:
McVeigh, a Gulf War veteran, sought revenge against the federal government for its handling of the Waco siege, which ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years before the bombing, as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992.
That’s terrorism – spreading fear among your enemies. Indeed, Mr. Rahami, accused of the recent bombings in New York and New Jersey, killed precisely 0 people, injuring 31. So how would Senator Graham respond?
If he agrees, we can at least applaud him for consistency, if not for his knowledge of the Constitution and, as Steve points out, the efficacy of the civilian judicial system.
If he disagrees (or just refuses to answer), we can wonder if he’s just another xenophobe, terrified of people from other countries and refusing to treat them fairly. For that should be, ideally, the essence of our judicial system – innocent until proven guilty.
