Already, some commentators have suggested that suspected terrorists like Abdulmutallab don't "deserve" the protections of the US criminal justice system. Such a claim reflects a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of criminal justice guarantees. Despite the formal construct of "the People" or "the United States" versus the defendant, the criminal justice system is not a zero-sum game; what protects the defendant does not hurt the public.
Indeed, it is by requiring that the accused not be subject to abusive interrogations, have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and enjoy the assistance of counsel, that the US system of criminal justice tries to get at the truth. Wrongful convictions don't just inflict grievous injury on the defendants, they waste scarce resources, and harm the credibility of the entire system.
The US federal courts – and the credibility of their verdicts – are one of the greatest assets that the United States has in fighting terrorism. To waste this asset by relying on substandard criminal proceedings would not just be wrong, it would be stupid.
-- Joanne Mariner
This works as a general summary of various aspects of the unfortunately (even by Democracy Now!) named "underwear bomber" (blah) story. What stands out for me -- more than the idea someone fell between the cracks (see the comments there about how that will happen) -- is the ridiculous over the top responses. For instance, this person is quite like the "shoe bomber," who during the Bush Administration did receive a criminal trial. But consistency is not always present. And, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is really passe.
I'm with those who are happy about the relatively calm, if firm, response from the Obama Administration. This will include, at least for the short term, some stupid aspects that are par for the course (e.g., Rachel Maddow had an expert on Monday that noted any "one hour before landing" rule would be stupid, since his timing really didn't mean anything). See also here (bottom) for an instance first hand perspective of airport screening rules.
OTOH, as TPM (and others surely) noted, it is systematic for such groups to react differently. Thus, the Pat Buchanan's will push for torture (don't recall learning about that in my Catholic education, though it was during the wimpy 1980s*). It does lead me to reaffirm my political picks, even if my options at times amount to clear lesser evils not people who I would ideally want to pick if I had my druthers. Druthers, however, are something you often do not have.
Meanwhile, this is what happens when we just "move on" and ignore things as "partisan" differences of opinion -- torture enablers are given suck-up interviews and continue to educate our children (well not mine, but you get the idea). Just one more face in a crowd, nothing special happening around here.
---
* I separated this into the previous entry.