Jared Lee Loughner will be tried in an Article III court, he will retain an attorney who will offer him a zealous defense, and presumably–[BECAUSE?while] he appears not to be cooperating with interrogators–he was told that he has the right to remain silent. The events in Tucson are often referred to as a “rampage” and a “tragedy” but media outlets have been squeamish about referring to the attempted assassination of a member of Congress–and the successful assassination of a sitting federal judge–as an act of terrorism, even though the political impact of his behavior may be substantial. [CUT AND REPLACE WITH: “IF HE WERE” All of these things would likely have been in doubt had he been a] Muslim there would be no doubt that we would be discussing THIS AS an act of terror. [SINCE HE’S NOT?] Demands for his summary execution have been notably absent.
Conservatives would argue that Article III courts are fine because Loughner is not a member of an international terrorist organization. Few of the DEFENDANTS IN recent domestic terrorism cases involving Islamic extremism are formal members either. [WHO’S THEY? CONSERVATIVES? They] could argue that because Loughner did not have those links, there was no danger of disclosing classified information in court–but the military commissions procedures for disclosing classified information are based on those in civilian courts, so that’s irrelevant. In the moments following the incident, [WE KNEW FEW DETAILS ABOUT whether Loughner acted alone AND SOME SUSPECTED AN ACCOMPLICE,] but no prominent conservatives called for Loughner to be waterboarded based on the possibility that other lawmakers might be in danger. There’s no real reason, if one condones the use of torture for the purpose of identifying imminent threats, why Loughner wasn’t tortured as a mere bureaucratic formality, just to be “safe.” [WHO’S THEY AGAIN? They] might argue that acts of terror are acts of war, but what Loughner allegedly did can also be plausibly described as an attack on democracy itself.
Our language and our response to Loughner is calibrated by the degree to which conservatives “identify” with him. I don’t mean that conservatives sympathize with Loughner or condone his actions. They don’t. I simply mean that they don’t see him as an alien, supernatural other who must suffer a kind of collective punishment as a ritual to ward off future dangers. He is to them, unquestionably American, so his rights are unquestioned. For some reason conservatives see acknowledging a larger threat posed by right-wing extremists as pointing the finger at themselves, even though no one would mistake Loughner for your average Tea Party activist or mainstream conservative. Perhaps conservatives are worried people might begin to judge them in the same broad, reductive terms as people like Newt Gingrich and Frank Gaffney have cast adherents to Islam.
We have a system that is built to serve the interests of justice, not mollify popular fear or anger. But of course this time around, no one is demanding that our system do that. I’d like to think that next time someone commits an act of murderous terror we’ll see similar restraint, but IF that person HAS an Arabic name, I’M NOT SURE that’ll be the case.
