How Bad an Idea is Trying KSM and Company in Civilian Court?

posted at 2:47 pm on November 14, 2009 by
[ Homeland Security ]    printer-friendly

Bill Kristol has a pretty good article on the risks associated with the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four associates in a civilian court. Kristol titles the article “A Risky Proposition for Democrats.” Indeed it might turn out to be. It also might turn out to be a costly decision where the safety of the American people are concerned, and, in the worst-case scenario, the most misguided decision an appointee — and, therefore, representative — of Barack Obama will ever make.

AG Eric Holder made a statement to the press yesterday in which he expressed his confidence in a “successful” verdict in the case. Most analysts interpreted the comment to mean Holder believes the case will end with convictions. I wish I shared their optimism. I’m not a lawyer, but to most lawyers a successful case is one in which relevant evidence is presented and fairly weighed by the judge and jury in arriving at a verdict. Could it be that Holder would be perfectly fine with acquittals across the board so long as rules of jurisprudence were followed?

Even more troubling is the history of civilian trials in this country, and specifically one: O. J. Simpson’s. What happens if KSM is found not guilty? As a resident of New York, I’m not exactly thrilled at the prospect of this man being turned lose on the streets of my city to vanish among the teeming crowds.

I know the liberal arguments on behalf of this decision. Patrick Leahy said it best when he said, “[B]y trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system — a system respected around the world.” How much trust will the world or Leahy, for that matter, have in our judicial system if the trial backfires and four of the guiltiest men alive walk?

Cross-posted at Zombie Contentions

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Could it be that Holder would be perfectly fine with acquittals across the board so long as rules of jurisprudence were followed?

YES!!!

Evidence from coercive interrogations thrown out, detention without arrest warrant as grounds for dismissal. Arrest and detention without jurisdiction as grounds for dismissal.

Acquittal and or dismissal on day one, and they walk out free men.

Skandia Recluse on November 14, 2009 at 4:24 PM

There are no words to describe how utterly stupid this decision is — but I will give you two:

stare decisis

If this becomes accepted precedence in law, our soldiers will have to be trained in evidence collection, chain of evidence procedures, etc. — the whole LEO/forensics ball of wax.

Of course there could be a sharp rise in resisting arrest, necessitating the use of lethal force.

GnuBreed on November 14, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Will a jury of his peers consist of Muslims? This is going be like OJ with a Pakistani twist. I note that Dershowitz is already yammering, no doubt doing some “ambulance chasing” in preparation for a legal consulting “moment” in front of the world.

Steven

SLE on November 14, 2009 at 6:08 PM

I propose that Eric Holder his self should preside as the prosecuting attorney in the KSM trial. Let him be the one with the fatwa who is hunted to his end of days for sending KSM to the gallows.
I also propose that the jury of peers on the KSM trial should be 100% muslim to be a true representation of his peers. This way, when they aquit KSM, the world will have proof that all islam is radical and there is no such a thing as a moderate muslim.

paulsur on November 14, 2009 at 8:17 PM

I know the liberal arguments on behalf of this decision. Patrick Leahy said it best when he said, “[B]y trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system — a system respected around the world.” How much trust will the world or Leahy, for that matter, have in our judicial system if the trial backfires and four of the guiltiest men alive walk?

But, as Andrew Cohen of the Washington Post assures us, they won’t walk. Even if the defendants are acquitted, they’ll be “picked up and thrown right back in the brig”.

What would that demonstrate about the American judicial system?

Mike Honcho on November 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM

See, this is how they close Guantanamo.

Jeff2161 on November 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Walking is unlikely. Deadlocking — if the defense can sneak a 9/11 Truther or simply someone who has bought into all of the left’s attacks on Bush foreign policy over the past seven years — is a far more plausible scenario.

Remember, they couldn’t even prevent the John Gotti juries from being tainted in New York, when they knew tampering would be likely, so to have someone who believes the WTC and Pentagon attacks were an inside job and would hold out on any convictions certainly could happen. Then after all that expense and inconvenience to anyone trying to get around Lower Manhattan, let alone the threat of possible sympathetic terrorist events either in support of KSM or in an attempt to get him and the others released, they’ll have to start the trial process all over again.

jon1979 on November 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM

But, as Andrew Cohen of the Washington Post assures us, they won’t walk.

Walking is unlikely.

Mike Honcho, jon1979: I’m perfectly OK with that and it’s not that I give a fig about liberals or the ACLU, but how does Obama/Holder reconcile the decision to retain defendants who have been acquitted in a civilian court with the demands (certain to be comical) to release them?

Howard Portnoy on November 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I suppose as long as they only get hung juries, they can continue to try KSM & Co. over again, at great cost, inconvenience to NYC area residents and possible endangerment to people in any part of the country or overseas from continued threats related to the trial (and were the first trial to be hung due to a lone juror who then becomes ubiquitous on TV and in the print spouting some sort of “Bush knew” meme, Obama would have no choice but to retry KSM or by inference come across as in some sort of agreement with the dissenting juror).

jon1979 on November 15, 2009 at 1:28 PM

I know the liberal arguments on behalf of this decision. Patrick Leahy said it best when he said, “[B]y trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system — a system respected around the world.”

This is insanity. The United States has given blood and treasure to liberate 60 million Muslims if Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the most generous thing any nation has done for another in history. The United States has nothing to prove. And liberals need not offer even a tittle or jot of further evidence to conclusively prove how retarded they are.

Basilsbest on November 15, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Prize Patrol parody: Foreign Terrorists Win Citizens’ Right to Federal Court Trial After Targeting Their 3,000th Civilian http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/foreign-terrorists-win-citizens-right.html

and

Terrorist Reporters Provide Detailed Coverage of National Security Information Revealed in Open Court Criminal Prosecutions of 9/11 Terrorists http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/terrorist-reporters-provide-detailed.html

Mervis Winter on November 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM