Should Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, the attempted bomber on the flight to Detroit, be tried in a military court or in the federal courts of the United States?

You will remember that an underwear bomb worn by the 23-year-old young man failed to explode and other passengers subdued him.

I feel that there is no question about it:  the federal courts.

It is argued that the military court would be faster and more practical and afford the alleged bomber fewer civil rights than a civilian court.

Even if true, a civilian court furnishes advantages to our country that no military court will offer.

We need a great deal of information from this 23-year-old, who is from a prominent family.

We need to know who trained him, who advised him, how and why he became so enthralled that he was willing to commit suicide and murder almost 300 fellow passengers.

Over and above a conviction, which seems extremely likely under the circumstances, we need to know everything that this young man can give us about his handlers in Yemen, Al Qaeda, and those who sent him to kill Americans.

In this case, undoubtedly Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab knows a lot more that can help us.
In the civilian court he is afforded an attorney.

Attorneys are officers of the court who carry obligations far and above those understood by the public.

An attorney is obligated to represent the defendant and put forward any and all legal and ethical defenses he has available.

The lawyer must not only defend his client in any and all ethical ways in accordance with the law, but effectuate justice, prevent further crime and, if his client admits his guilt, to encourage him to plead guilty.

A lawyer knows that the defendant’s cooperation with the authorities is needed to flush out his handlers and their modus operandi.

A lawyer’s duty is to afford to his client the best treatment possible from the courts.

Working closely, a defense attorney can lay this out to his client, show Abdulmutallab that it is in his interest to cooperate in every way.

A competent lawyer can gain the confidence of the young man and make it possible to receive the information we need to prevent further acts of this nature.

A military court may well rush to judgment.

Military courts afford the accused a less responsive type of justice.

They tend to brush over the aspects of the law that defense counsel can use to bring about a fair and considered outcome.

While an attorney is provided to the defendant in a military tribunal, he is under the thumb of a military court and less likely to thoroughly work with his client and gain his confidence than in a civilian court.

A military court, like a judge, may jump to a conclusion while juries, requiring a full explanation, are far less likely to do so.

The speedier outcome may miss some of the details that need to be brought to light.
Every aspect of terrorism must be thoroughly studied and digested.

The civilian court is far more likely to achieve that objective.

Herbert E. Phillipson Jr. is a retired judge who lives in Dowagiac.