The surest way for politicians to sound like they know how to protect the homeland from terror is to call for declaring the likes of the Chelsea bomber an enemy combatant.
To do so in this case, under the facts as they now appear, would be a gross and counterproductive abuse of presidential power.
No surprise: Donald Trump cavalierly labeled Ahmad Khan Rahami as an enemy combatant while betraying typical ignorance about grave issues of national security and the Constitution.
The 9/11 terror attack shocked the nation into recognizing a difference between murderous criminals and murderous terrorists who had sworn allegiance to a stateless force bent on waging war against the U.S.
Pursuing Al Qaeda, the military and CIA picked up hostile parties abroad, including masterminds of the worst-ever assault on American soil. The government deemed them unlawful enemy combatants in that they were not soldiers of a recognized national foe and ignored the laws of war.
The unlawful combatant designation empowered the U.S. to hold prisoners indefinitely — until the end of hostilities — and to interrogate them in hopes of gathering valuable intelligence.
Over the last decade and a half, radical Islamists have shifted from events of mass destruction to lone-wolf strikes, such as the Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino shooting and Rahami’s attempt to detonate 10 bombs in New Jersey and Manhattan, succeeding twice.
The U.S. has successfully prosecuted every attacker in civilian courts, with all the constitutional protections they afford. Those include the Miranda warning, which advises suspects that they have the right to remain silent and to request an attorney.
Declaring a terrorist to be an unlawful enemy combatant has a significant advantage — if used wisely: Authorities may question a terrorist indefinitely to gather intelligence about other plots without the Miranda warning or presence of a lawyer.
As attractive as that sounds, it carries a major drawback: If and when the authorities prosecute in civilian court, the law will bar them from using any evidence provided by the terrorist.
Sen. Lindsey Graham believes President Obama should follow such an aggressive course with Rahami.
Doing so might or might not produce information as to his foreign contacts and possible bombmaking associates. But labeling every freelance radical Islamist an enemy combatant would push the U.S. unnecessarily toward a judicial reckoning on the extent of presidential power.
The designation must be reserved for the most suitable, critical circumstances. Already, the FBI has the power to question a terror suspect without issuing the Miranda warning for a reasonable period of time to gauge ongoing public safety threats.
As for Trump, the Republican nominee lightly threw around the term “enemy combatants” while discussing Rahami. The well-founded fear is that a President Trump would do the same to awful effect in the Oval Office.
Trump also brayed that Rahami would have good medical care and “room service” meals while his case proceeds in U.S. courts. Displaying with gusto an un-American streak, he moaned that Rahami might have a good lawyer.
Finally, he predicted the prosecution would drag on forever and conclude abysmally.
“And in the end, people will forget and his punishment will not be what it once would have been.” Trump said.
Back in the real world, Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev went from arrest to death row in just two years.