British, American Courts: Plodding, Frustrating - But Consider the Alternatives

From today's news:

"Five charged as al Qaeda plotters in U.S. and U.K."
CNN (July 7, 2010)

"The Justice Department announced charges Wednesday against five people who prosecutors say are members of an al Qaeda plot to attack targets in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The charges link a plot against the New York subway system to a scheme to attack a target in the United Kingdom, and say both were directed by 'senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.'..."

The CNN article shows the sort of concerns that British courts - and, I think, Western courts in general - have. An immigration tribunal decided that one of the men involved, Abid Naseer, is an Al Qaeda agent. He wasn't deported to Pakistan: because he might be tortured there.

Some red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans might say that's being 'soft on criminals.' Maybe so: it's also one of the reasons I sincerely hope Western civilization wins the war on terror. The more rabidly "Islamic" countries, like Iran, are quite definitely not soft on criminals. ("Halt stoning of Iran 'adulterer' - Human Rights Watch," BBC (July 7, 2010))

I put "Islamic" in quotes, since I don't think that outfits like Al Qaeda are any more representative of Muslims and Islam, than the Ku Klux Klan of the fifties and sixties was of Americans and Christianity.

There's a Lesson Here: Several, Actually

First, I think the legal proceedings in today's news show that Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations are

• Not nice
• Not safe to have around
• Nowhere near willing to sit down and chat about living peaceably alongside people aren't just like them

If that sounds patently obvious: you haven't been keeping up with the sillier statements of America's more earnest subcultures.

Second, for all its (many) faults, the sort of judicial system that's been hammered out in the English-speaking world could be worse. A lot worse. Principles like 'innocent until proven guilty' may not feel good all the time: but there's a reason why we're careful (on paper, anyway) about assuming that someone's guilty - and then stringing the varmint up.

Not-entirely-unrelated posts:

• "New York City's Time Square: A Bomb, a Vietnam Vet, Electricity, and Congress"
  (May 2, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "New York City's Time Square: A Bomb, a Vietnam Vet, Electricity, and Congress"
  (May 2, 2010)
• "Northwest Flight 253: Near Miss on Christmas Weekend"
  (December 27, 2009)
• "Anti-Islam Porno Posters in St. Cloud, Minnesota: 'Unacceptable' "
  (December 11, 2009)
• "Imperialist American Aggressors Attack Poland?"
  (October 30, 2009)
• "Attack on New York City Thwarted; or Your Constitutional Rights Threatened: Depends on Your Point of View"
  (October 6, 2009)
• "Who Needs Facts? Cultural Assumptions and Politics"
  (July 24, 2009)
• "Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, Pakistani Imam: Denounced Suicide Attacks, Killed"
  (June 12, 2009)
• "Genocide! Racism! Down With Columbus Day!!"
  (April 8, 2009)
• "USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and The War on Terror"
  (January 13, 2009)
• "Holiday Attack on New York City Planned - Maybe"
  (November 27, 2008)
• "With Friends Like These, Does Islam Need Enemies?"
  (January 22, 2008)

In the news:

• Five charged as al Qaeda plotters in U.S. and U.K."
  CNN (July 7, 2010)