Apparently Faisal Shahzad is making it easy for the American court system–and, ironically, validating the notion that American citizens who commit crimes of terror are CRIMINALS and not soldiers or “enemy combatants” (whatever that means). The would-be Times Square bomber pleaded “guilty and 100 times more” to several counts in a Manhattan court today and made it abundantly clear that he was acting in the name of Islam. Many of the counts against him carry mandatory life sentences, so it’s a certainty that Shahzad will never again be a free man. What I’d like to know is…why do we have to wait FIVE MONTHS before the judge sentences him?
I understand the eagerness in this particular case, but I think that the general principles of jurisprudence are weighed up very carefully and have a long history of thought behind them (I believe they represent a system as solid as other fields like “moral philosophy” etc). A good general rule is that one should never violate the “due process” decided upon earlier. While it may not matter in this case, when we get into the habit of breaking the rules in one area it may make it easier to do the same in another situation where it matters more.
I’m not making a slippery slope argument, I’m just saying that even a crazy criminal madman deserves his respectful day in court according to due process.
Iain,
You’re absolutely right. I am not advocating giving this man short shrift, or in anyway short-cutting the judicial system. That said, five months seems an awfully long time to wait on such a clear case.