He reviews the Commission record to the civilian trial record, re: terror trials, and in the process rips Comey and Goldsmith a new one for their analysis.

And, in the process, it looks like Andy has nailed the real reason for trying the Cole terrorists using a military commission — Holder is forum shopping, and in a way that will set an extremely bad precedent for the future.

Holder’s untenable distinction between the Cole jihadists and the 9/11 jihadists exposes him to what Comey and Goldsmith concede are “charges of opportunistic forum shopping.” They’re being kind. This is not just a charge; Holder is engaged in opportunistic forum shopping — Comey and Goldsmith’s own theory for why the Cole case is going to the military system attests to that. Even worse is the fact that under the MCA, the American people’s representatives sensibly prescribed military-justice processes for combatant detainees and war criminals, but now, thanks to Holder, all terrorists consigned to that system will be able to claim that giving them less due-process protection than that given to the barbaric KSM violates the bedrock American principle of equal protection under the law.
. . .

Andy does not address the deterrence issue in the article, nor potential jury issues. But his argument against Holder and his supporters is compelling, especially where he discusses the conflict of interest issue.

The reasons for holding it in NYC seem to be purely ideological, and are primarily theatrical in nature, as opposed to being driven by legitimate judicially-based factors.

The whole notion seems to reflect a sort of childish bravado on the part of both Obama and Eric Holder, a “we’ll show them how our criminal justice system works . . .”

This does not mean that there will undoubtedly be an Islamist attack aimed at maximizing civilian deaths. But if a chance arises — even with a “lone wolf” actor — who seriously believes that the opportunity would not be exploited to the hilt?

It is just that it is unnecessarily risky.

And there are other unnecessary dangers associated with the trial. For example, who in their right mind would ever willingly serve on such a jury?

Oh, they will somehow find a jury, I’m sure! But given what we know will ultimately happen post trial, with jurors being identified, and the selling of the “inside story,” who in their right mind would want to have such a target painted on them and on their family forever?

And how do we benefit from such a trial?

We absolutely know from experience that such criminal trials do not act as a deterrent to future terrorist activity. I think even the average person could make a very convincing argument that the opposite may be true. And I’d bet that someone like Andrew McCarthy could make a very compelling argument in that regard, one based on the historic record — i.e., that the trial and conviction of the Blind Sheik and the other conspirators in some ways spurred on al-Qaeda in their ultimate quest to “finish the job.” That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have tried them, but there is little doubt that the Clinton Administration dropped the ball when it came to simultaneously combatting al-Qaeda, and Osama bin-Laden on some international level.

Good lord, people, have some faith in American counterterrorism.

Yeah, they got the Big Apple locked down like a White House state dinner!

A shocking display of lameness from an unlikely source,

I have always admired John Bolton. He knows his stuff. It seems to me that he is issuing a stark warning that this travesty of “justice” is being carried out with pre 9/11 thinking and actions. If we are lulled as in the past, then as sure as the sun shines each day there will be another attack, worse than before. There is absolutely nothing lame about it and thinking about why he is saying this is more important than labeling it as a shocking display of lameness. AP’s reaction, on the other hand, does surprise me or rather, is shocking to me.

Good lord, people, have some faith in American counterterrorism. They’ve done okay for eight years, haven’t they?

They are being dismantled by the Obamacrats.

It’s not Bolton’s job to be a cheerleader for Obama and where he’s taking America.

AP: We’ve already had a terror attack on U.S. soil in Obambi’s first ten months in the saddle. While we won’t know for a while (and may never) if Ft. Hood was the result of a Obama Justice Dept. decision to chill the investigation into Hasan, the fact remains that this administration is NOT as committed to national security as the former. The fact that they would even entertain a trial on U.S. soil, would cede civilian rights to unlawful combatants, and will allow these show trials to occur even while stating that the ‘alleged’ terrorists will be found guilty (no pre-trial prejudice there), betrays their lack of seriousness.

Bolton is stating the obvious: there will be huge incentive for the bad guys to make a splash during this circus.

trfogey on November 24, 2009 at 9:40 PM

EXACTLY!!

Whatver the jihadi weapons & platform choices for delivering mega-death to NYC, the B. Hussein political wing has ensured that the terrorist planners have a high-value target in the belly of the beast they’re determined to destroy.

How many trillions in damage they’ll be able to inflict on the US and world economy, if they’re successful again this time, is anybody’s guess.

Yes, barring a last minute change of venue back to a military installation, the KSM trial is another good reason for Americans to give New York, New York a wide berth over the next few years.

“Let’s Roll”

You appear to be arguing that existing media presence is a prerequisite for the terrorists attacking. That is idiotic.

That must be why Atta & Co. hit Boise.

So, Jimmy, while I neglected to respond immediately, your point is stupid, and was stupid all three times you posted it. Maybe you ought to stick to your D list blog where there’s no chance anybody will read your embarrassingly bad arguments anymore.

cordially,
e-pirate

e-pirate on November 25, 2009 at 9:43 AM

No, you’re a doody-head.

Even Col. Ollie North was afraid of Bin Ladin. He took steps to protect his family back in 1987.
Here is the transcript.

Good lord, people, have some faith in American counterterrorism.

My Gosh, AP…. What is WRONG with you?

Do YOU think having the trial in civilian court in NYC is a good idea? Its not cowardice (you buffoon) to think that doing this moronic thing is wrong…or that we should not INVITE terrorism into our midst.

I won’t be partaking of the Broadway theatre while Bambi and Holder and putting on their anti-American political fest there, and needlessly endangering American lives in the process. Does that make ME a coward?

Why don’t you buck up, a bit, my man, and take a principled stand on something yourself, rather than trying to appear rational and reasonable to the 3 or 4 lefties who patronize HA.

Islamic nuke #1 will go to Israel. Nukes #2, #3, and #4 will go to Washington, D.C., NYC, and Chicago. The terrorists will “bring it on” when they can–even if it takes 100 years to do so. They have been doing these tricks for 1400 years so far.

rocketman on November 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Doubtful that the first Islamist nuke will go to Israel, Israel is far more vigilant than we are at the moment, and you can bet if any Shahab was launched from Iran that the IDF’s missile defense forces would probably knock it down. Then Israel would pummel Iran from the air. If it somehow was confirmed to be a nuke shot at Israel, you can betcha that Israel would respond in kind.

It seems far more likely to me that a nuke would be set on NYC or DC first, in an effort to at least stir us up and turn our focus inward however briefly, THEN maybe another shot at Israel in the confusion.

I agree that they are a patient lot and like I and others have said,

We have to be right 100% of the time, they have to be right once.

The KSM trials would be a perfect “opportunity” to make exactly the statement they would like.

No offense was taken. I just wasn’t sure what point you were trying to make. It’s water under the bridge now.