An outright brilliant column from Doctor Charles Krauthammer this morning: [1]
[2]
Doctor Charles Krauthammer
For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the “propaganda of the deed.” And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 — not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.
And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life — and KSM, a second act: “9/11, The Director’s Cut,” narration by KSM.
September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable — a civilian trial in the media capital of the world — from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.
So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.
Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.
First of all, a BBCT to David who posted the question and answer session between Attorney General Holder and Senator Lindsey Graham. I share David’s distaste for Senator Graham, but must admit he made a excellent showing yesterday. Frankly, I will express more than a little surprise , here.
I’ve been going over the transcript of that exchange, and here’s one section that pops out at me:
SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, nor do I. But here’s my concern. Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: [ACM: LONG PAUSE] I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made —
SEN. GRAHAM: We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I think —
SEN. GRAHAM: … The Ghailani case — he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn’t object to it going into federal court. But I’m telling you right now. We’re making history and we’re making bad history.
The senator, for the first time in recent memory, is quite right. There is no way on the planet that HThe older couldn’t know the answer to this basic question. The only conclusion that one can draw is it was a question that he’d would rather not have been brought up in the first place. The only conclusion to draw beyond that is that the Attorney General of the United States doesn’t give a damn about precedence. Legal, or otherwise. He knows full well that there are no cases on the books that support his position. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Zippo. Naught. Remember; this administration came to office telling us all that it was going to “reshape America”. It was going to “recreate America”. Someone with that kind of dedication is going to ignore a lack of precedence. At the bottom line, this decision to hold this trial in civilian court is a political decision. it is not based on precedents. It is not based on prudence.
As Krauthammer points out, the attorney general isn’t even particularly worried about the concept of military tribunals, having sent the mastermind of the attack on the USS called, for example, to a military tribunal in the same decree as what set the Artcle three trial up in NYC for KSM.
What really has happened here is that Holder… and his boss, Obama… have opened a pandora’s box.as it stands now, no matter which way this goes, America loses.
They know very well that failure of the prosecution is in fact an option in an article three court. For both Holder and Obama to suggest otherwise, is a vain attempt to mollify the vast majority of Americans who want to see The death penalty applied to KSM and the others responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Doctor Krauthammer is quite correct when he says that the administration is undermining the fairness of the trial… ‘fairness’ being the original purpose of having it in an article three court in the first place. Even assuming that convictions happen, the statements by the administration will forever taint the results, and give the public relations savvy jihad crowd yet another weapon to use against us.
Consider, please, that terrorism is largely an effort at image creating, and at the bottom line one of , in a weird way, public relations. What this administration has done, is to give the terrorists and opportunity in a court of law to appear to be reasonable men. Or at least to portray themselves as the victims. Perhaps someone can tell me how America wins with that situation in place. I doubt it, but…
Again, we come back to the idea that this is a political decision. The incoherent defense being put up of this decision by the attorney general tells us several things. Probably the most important of which, is that you really doesn’t want to admit that it is a political decision.
I submit to you that what’s going on here, is the attorney general wants to use this show trial in New York City as a means of backdoor prosecution of President Bush and those in his administration. The words, the only thing that this serves is political retribution.
Just chew on that one for a while.