Big Birther has been out in force these last couple of weeks decrying the Obama administration's decision to give Khlaid Sheikh Muhammed a trial by jury for his role in the 9/11 attacks.
You've heard the quotes from Kyl, Boehner, Palin, Lieberman, Giuliani, Beck, the whole gang - piling on with their criticism of this move by Obama and how it somehow endangers the lives of Americans, and that it's beyond the pale to afford this man a trial given that his acts likely constituted not just an isolated act of terrorism, but an act of war on American soil - indeed launched a war - and that those circumstances free us to execute him using whatever tribunals or special orders we please.
Now, I could argue here against this view - but they would not listen to me since I'm not a Founding Father (cue angelic choir).
If only there were SOME example from the time of our founding when there was an unconscionable act of terror that spilled American blood on our soil - an act so heinous that it launched a war - to guide us in how we might handle this situation...
On the evening of March 5, 1770 - nine British soldiers opened fire on a group of unarmed Bostonians gathered outside the Custom House. Five Americans were killed - and the event galvanized the burgeoning independence movement then fomenting in the colonies in the run-up to the Revolutionary War.
The British soldiers were arrested and indicted on charges of murder - and no lawyer in Boston could be found to represent them, such was the anger of the population against these men at that time. Being associated with these men, it seemed, would be an instant career suicide.
At the request of the British captain himself, John Adams accepted the case, later notingthat by doing so he was "incurring a Clamour and popular Suspicions and prejudices, which are not yet worn out and never will be forgotten as long as History of this Period is read".
Adams represented the murderers himself because to not do so would be to prove to those loyal to the British (at home and abroad) that the emerging American legal systems were incapable of carrying out basic rules law.
"It was," he continued, "however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country."
Indeed - despite the fact that Adams even sprung seven of the soliders from conviction - his role in defending the British at that time not only won American legal practices respect in the eyes of the world - but actually won him notoriety and esteem within the colonies among the separatists.
That was back when it seems people could be convinced that there were higher causes than simple revenge - among them the rule of law and importance of blind justice.
From the transcriptof Adam's speech at the conclusion of the trial:
The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men... On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace.
Always remember this: The teabaggers do not only misunderstand the founders, the Constitution and the role of justice in our society; they despise it as surely as Bush despised the Geneva Conventions. It falls upon US to remember our heritage, from the earliest days of the Republic, as a people of laws - and to fight at every corner any impulse by those who would undo us - who would jettison our laws for the sake of their own, severe ideologies.
Added bonus: Here's a video of John Adams giving some teabaggers what-for in regards to the need for trials and the rule of law; from the HBO movie John Adams - not my vid, so sorry about the picture quality.