Okay, I've gotten a bit more sleep, so I'll finish.
Also, while the attorney general doesn't articulate himself very well, Graham's argument is total bullshit. It's the antithesis of democracy. His complaint is if we have a society of laws and rules we'll actually have to apply them, even when it's not advantageous. This is what defines a principle, something you stick to when it's difficult to do so.
But Holder claimed to Senator Kohl that he would not be trying KSM in federal court if he didn't think our chances for success were
enhanced by trying him there. So, Holder contradicts you.
But, as you say, there's overwhelming evidence on KSM. It's not that our chances for success are enhanced, it's that Holder saw that the case against KSM was so strong we didn't have to worry at all about not succeeding in either type of trial, and he could thus have his fun with a big 9/11 Show in New York. KSM wouldn't be going to trial in federal court unless Holder felt 100% certain about the outcome. Otherwise he'd stick with the military tribunals like he'll do with other captured enemy combatants.
Holder also stated that if, somehow, a jury pulled an O.J. and acquitted him, or if the jury was hung, or if he got off on a legal technicality, that we would definitely not be releasing him. That we will hold him in prison regardless of what happens at the trial. And, President Obama stated this week that the outcome of the trial is certain anyway, and KSM will be convicted and will be executed.
Is that the sort of trial you have in mind when you go on about a society of rules and laws and principles? A trial where the President says the defendant will definitely be convicted and executed, and where the Attorney General says the defendant will stay in prison no matter what happens?
Also, Holder is not saying we won't have more military tribunals for other captured terrorists. KSM is going to be tried in federal court because the targets of KSM's terrorist attack were civilians on American soil. Had KSM attacked a military target, he'd be tried in a military tribunal.
You consider that sound logic? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a foreigner who was waging war on America from a foreign land. He sent combatants to America to mass-murder thousands of people, strike the Pentagon, and knock down the Twin Towers. The military captured him overseas during war, took him into custody, and interrogated him for information to help us in the war. After all intelligence was extracted from him, they should have moved quickly to a military tribunal and been done with him.
The enemy combatant model (which has helped keep us safe since 9/11) is so clearly the proper approach to stick with in KSM's case, and that's why Holder is having such difficulty in explaining his decision. But Holder probably has his own, hidden agendas. Or, having his big 9/11 Show in NYC seemed too exciting for him to deny himself.
Holder's logic isn't just unsound, it's dangerous. Terrorists often love the idea of a trial where they can attempt to turn it into their show for their purposes. The message Obama and Holder just sent to terrorists is that they will get an opportunity to have such a trial only if they target civilians. Thus, there might be terrorists who were plotting to strike military targets who will change their plans and target civilians instead. Way to go!
Holder points out, but does not sufficiently explain, Graham's analogy is nonsense. It doesn't matter what court Osama bin Laden was tried in, the evidence against him for a multitude of crimes is enough to earn an execution, or life in prison a couple hundred times over. This is totalitarianian thinking.
In the cases of KSM and Usama bin Laden, I'd rather we were debating whether we should try them in military tribunals or whether we should spare ourselves the expense and trouble and just send 'em straight to the firing squad.
But Obama has chosen the law enforcement model for KSM, and has thus opened a can of worms for no comprehensible reason. So, we'd also follow that policy for Usama bin Laden, and Graham's point was a good one. If Usama is captured tomorrow, we'd now have to immediately read him his rights and hire him a lawyer. Or, if not, why not? You say it's a nonsense issue because of the mountains of evidence. But it does matter to a judge in a federal court.
If we captured Usama bin Laden tomorrow, the military and the CIA should whisk him away and extract everything they can from him by any lawful methods. Then we should kill him...or, okay, have a military tribunal and then kill him.
What we shouldn't do is immediately mirandize him, give him a lawyer, and send him to the USA for some silly show trial that bin Laden might be able to turn into
his show, paid for with millions of taxpayer dollars. What is the point, if the outcome of the trial is certain? Or, even if it's not certain, he would not be released no matter the outcome?
In this war so far, America has prevented al Qaeda from carrying out a successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Why do you wanna throw a monkey wrench like this into things? Holder said it was a close and tough call for him to make, thus conceding there's no reason he can hold up that stomps on or shines above the many arguments against what he's doing.
A prudent man focused on keeping us safe from the enemy would not be pulling this bullshit on us.
What is Eric Holder's real motivation?
(And do you realize that Obama would be finished politically -- absolutely ruined to the point where he'd be harming his party to even run for re-election -- if there's any sort of Islamic terror attack in New York during that trial?)
Their heads would explode if they had to admit Palin actually had a point worth being concerned about in her "death panels" warning.
