AP: Having Federal civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four associates in New York City is A Risky Proposition for Democrats
US Army Veteran
Mohammed and his four associates poses legal and political risks for Barack
Obama:
"Hauling the professed 9/11 mastermind and four alleged henchmen to a New
York courthouse is a risky proposition for President Barack Obama. The move
will bar evidence obtained under duress and complicate a case where anything
short of slamdunk convictions will empower the president's critics.... The
case is likely to force the civilian federal court to confront a host of
difficult issues, including rough treatment of detainees, sensitive
intelligence gathering and the potential spectacle of defiant terrorists
disrupting proceedings....
"[Attorney General Eric] Holder insisted the case is on firm legal footing,
but he acknowledged the political ground may be more shaky when it comes to
bringing feared al-Qaida terrorists to U.S. soil. 'To the extent that there
are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps,"'he said. But
any political consequences will reach beyond Holder to his boss, Obama."
But, the AP fails to note, the political consequences will also extend to 54
Senate Democrats who voted recently against legislation to bar such civil
trials--and to Democrats in the House who will be put on the spot as well.
Congress could insist on military tribunals, and indeed in the past it has
provided for such tribunals. I imagine Republicans on the Hill will try to
move to overrule Holder, with legislation in the Senate, and with
legislation and perhaps a discharge petition in the House. Holder can take
his lumps for his reckless ideological decision if he wishes. Will
congressional Democrats follow him off the cliff?
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is willing to. He's
quoted by AP as saying that "by 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." Do non-Vermont and
non-left-wing Democrats really think we need what is likely to be a
disgusting and dangerous spectacle in order to demonstrate something "to the
world?"
I suspect some Democrats might find more to agree with in the comments of
President Bush's last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, a former New York
federal judge who presided over the blind Sheikh case. Mukasey objects that
federal courts are not well suited to this task, and that trial in open
court "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a
circus for those being tried."
The AP story claims that "family members of Sept. 11 victims were also
divided." I don't believe that. A few family members could be found today to
say they didn't care about the venue as long as justice is done. That's
certainly understandable. But when it becomes clear how much of a circus the
administration may well be creating in the name of trying the killers of
their loved ones, in order to make the world happy, I think very few family
members will remain who can be provided to reporters to give cover to the
administration.
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have embarked on a path that's
perilous for their party. We'll see how many congressional Democrats choose
to follow them.
Posted by William Kristol on November 13, 2009 06:45 PM | Permalink
duke
wrote:
>This AP story explains how a federal civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh
>Mohammed and his four associates poses legal and political risks for Barack
>Obama:
>"Hauling the professed 9/11 mastermind and four alleged henchmen to a New
>York courthouse is a risky proposition for President Barack Obama.
Well, we can't give buckwheat credit for having too much sense. He just thru
trying to pacify his buddy the Major of Fort Hood as troubled rather than a
killer terrorist.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
tenjets
Wm Kristol, author of PNAC, who has no standing and is nothing more
than an apologist for failed polices, gives his opinion. Who cares?