Another victory for the reality-based community?

So, does this get the clock ticking on the tenure of the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department?

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The president's advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

Of course, these civilian trials have nothing to with the rule of law but rather an ideological slanted appeasement to the Left. Once the President and the aforementioned miserable hack started making statements to the effect that KSM would never be set free even if he was acquitted, they forfeited any moral high ground on the subject of rule of law and civil rights. And they most likely forfeited anything resembling a fair trial as the presiding judge may very well have thrown out the entire case because of those statements.

Perhaps then, equal parts appeasement to common sense and the realization that their idiotic prejudicial comments jeopardized the outcome of the trial.

Live and learn: we’ll take these victories when and where we can as we (prematurely?) credit the Obama administration for heeding a 2x4 of reality upside its head.

Terrorists in our midst

Proponents of prosecuting alleged terrorists via our criminal justice system will point to the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid and the “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla as justification for this method over that of the military tribunal system.

With respect to Padilla, here is the dirty little secret they don't want to tell you:

He was not convicted of the most important plot we had against him — the conspiracy with KSM, Binyam Mohammed, and others to carry out a second wave of post-9/11 attacks inside the United States. He was never indicted on that plot because he could not be convicted applying civilian due process standards.

Padilla refused to give information to the FBI, using its regular protocols. It was only when he was designated as an enemy combatant and transferred to military custody (no lawyer involved in interrogations, no Miranda, no case to plea bargain) that he began to give up valuable information. None of those confessions could be admitted under the standards applicable in civilian courts.

Moreover, we knew a lot of other information about him from the interrogations of other Qaeda detainees, like KSM, by the CIA. But that information, too, could not be admitted under civilian court rules unless we were willing to give the sources immunity from prosecution. Since we were never going to immunize the likes of KSM, that was never going to happen.

By the way, you’ll be pleased to know that in 17 years from this point, Padilla will walk as a free man in this country as opposed to the life sentence he would’ve received had he been convicted of his major activity.

The Great Dodge challenge

Last week, we blogged about Big Media’s KSM problem and of the Great Dodge. The Great Dodge is Big Media’s refusal to call on the carpet or at least question the Obama administration’s double standard regarding the civilian criminal trial of KSM. Both the President and the hack currently employed as this country’s attorney general, Eric Holder, have assured us that regardless of the outcome of KSM’s trial, the dangerous terrorist that he is, KSM would not be set free.

No one of which we have either yet heard or read has confronted this galling hypocrisy where KSM will be treated to the full benefits of America’s sense of justice and rule of law and its civil rights traditions… except that he won’t.

Defenders of the decision to try KSM in civilian court have been throwing out red herrings (the Islamic world will respect us for doing this... and whaddya mean it’s a bad idea to try KSM in New York? Who are the cowards now, conservatives?) left and right so as to not have to confront the unbearable reality that the trial of KSM is nothing more than a show trial.

Perhaps to incentivize a show of spine for those who have unflinchingly been accepting the Obama/Holder “logic” hook, line and teabag, we are issuing a challenge.

Upon reading the first reasonably coherent and consistent defense of the overarching KSM trial strategy that is presented either abroad or in the comment section of this blog, we will walk away from blogging forever*, no questions asked. It's that simple. If the hypocrisy can be rationalized then we shut down Beers with Demo and devote our remaining days to voluntary acts of charity and sobriety and involuntary acts of chastity.






* By employing the Obama/Holder KSM exit strategy, we’re not shutting down anything regardless of how eloquent and fluid the logic and will continue blogging at our normal course and speed.

Big Media's KSM problem

Column here by Eugene Robinson, titled “Battlefield in the War of Ideas” is fairly representative of the liberal-Left’s defense of the Obama administration’s decision to try KSM in civilian courts (extreme Cliff notes version: “they” will like us more).

And fairly representative because it also embodies what we will refer to as the Great Dodge. The Great Dodge is the liberal-Left’s complete unwillingness to address the rank hypocrisy of trying KSM in civilian court. If one wishes to try KSM and other terror detainees in civilian court that is one thing. If one wishes to try KSM in civilian court and the USS COLE bombers in a military tribunal, that is entirely another. Considering the heinousness of the 9-11 WTC attack against defenseless civilians vs. an attack on a U.S. warship, what is the greater warcrime?

It would still appear to be an inconsistency but we could at least see the logic of trying the USS COLE bombers in NYC but reserving the military tribunal for the true war criminal, KSM. This administration, however, gets it completely bass-ackwards. Wrong in principle – wrong in application.

The Great Dodge is also the liberal-Left’s unwillingness to call the Obama administration on the carpet for publicly saying KSM will be convicted and that regardless of the outcome of KSM’s trial, he will not be set free.

The administration has made a grand showing of this trial being faithful to the principles of the Constitution and American civil rights but their deeds and words betray that notion. Both Obama and Holder can legitimately be accused of pre-judging the accused and their assertion that KSM will never be allowed to walk free regardless of the outcome of his trial sets this up as nothing more than a show trial and thus makes a mockery of the very principles the administration is claiming to uphold. It also reveals what this civilian trial was all about from the beginning: not to uphold any true American justice but just cheap political payback to the left.

Robinson and others of his ilk have, thus far, refused to call out the administration let alone even acknowledge there might be a tiny problem with not setting a man free if he wins an acquittal in our court system. The Great Dodge ambles on.

Is the fix in? (UPDATED)

(please scroll down for update)

Apologies for the jarring visual right after lunch….

Recall how for years the left whined about the use of military tribunals for detainees and how trying the likes of KSM in civilian courts instead would be a triumph for civil rights and the Constitution. Well, last week, the Obama administration gave the left the apparent victory it has long sought as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 other terror detainees will be tried in a civilian court mere steps from 9-11 ground zero. Or is it?

He has consistently dodged the question of whether or not he would let KSM walk if he were actually acquitted but here is what he said back in May:

Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again.

So, how does the President intend on accomplishing this for KSM and other terror suspects if they are acquitted in the civilian courts?

Before Obama’s election, Neal Katyal who is now Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General, in an article favored the idea of a “national security court” separate from the civilian courts that would be employed for a “very small handful of cases in which patently dangerous people cannot be tried” or where a “criminal trial has failed”.

Where a criminal trial has failed…?

Do yourself a favor and click on over to Patterico’s Pontifications who has done an outstanding job of citing quotes from the President and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, to make a very strong case that the possibility of a separate system outside of the civilian court system that will be employed if KSM is acquitted amounts to this upcoming trial of KSM and the four others as being nothing more than a show trial.

Let's see how this whole thing plays out and see how much of a victory it is for civil rights and the Constitution.

(UPDATE #1):Charles Krauthammer on Fox News, via the Corner on Holder’s baffling inconsistency with sending KSM to the civilian courts and the USS COLE bombers to military tribunals and the farcical nature of the civilian trials:

What is so hard to understand is Holder's argument, the logic of his argument.

Now, I want to look only at a single aspect of it. … If [Holder] opposed the military commissions on principle, you could say his decision on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was wrong, but at least it was logical.

But he doesn't. On the day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, he announced he would send five of the miscreants who attacked the Cole, a warship, to a military trial in Guantanamo or perhaps elsewhere.

Now, what is the logic here? Holder was asked about this, and to the extent that he was coherent, which is only to a small extent, he said: Well, if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, then you go to a civilian court; a military target like the Cole, to a military [court].

First of all, the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, so it wasn't exclusively a civilian attack. But perhaps Holder forgot about that.

But secondly, even if [9/11] were exclusively an attack on civilians — which is a worse act of war criminality, attacking defenseless civilians or attacking a military target, like a warship? We have attacked warships in our history, Japan and Germany in the Second World War and elsewhere. That is an accepted act of war.

Why does a person [like] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who attacked civilians — the more obvious and egregious war crime — get the extra protections, the extra constitutional niceties that you get in a civilian courtroom, as opposed to someone who attacks a military target? The logic here is perverse.

And the incentive is [perverse]: If you are a terrorist overseas thinking — am I going to attack a well-protected military installation? [No,] I will hit a civilian [target]. I will be in a cozy cell with a lawyer, Miranda rights and perhaps even a blog. Why wouldn't I attack innocent civilians?

On whether, if by technicality or hung jury, one of these cases went the other way, they would be let free:

They will be rearrested in the courtroom. A second charge will be filed, and it will be endless. And in the end, if they are acquitted on all charges endlessly, they will end up in indefinite detention.

We will not let them out. Everyone knows that. That's what makes it such a farce.

Setting aside for a moment, the show trial aspect that is formulating, what is the political upside for the admnistration for doing this? Drop the “victory for the Constitution” nonsense as the President has already admitted KSM is not going to walk, regardless – what’s in it for him? The only logical explanation we can muster is payback to his base who have been screaming for Bush and Cheney’s heads for years.

Of course, it will be the counter-terrorism and interrogation techniques of the Bush administration that will be on trial and if this results in war crimes indictments from the ICC then so much the better.

But that petty payoff to your lefty base seems to be a pretty meager upside considering the absolute Charlie-Foxtrot this all has the potential to become.

Stay tuned.

Just like You... only more so.

Awesome. We’re going to fight the war on terror in civilian courts. The Supremes have decided to confer U.S. Constitutional rights on the “unlawful combatants” currently detained at Gitmo.

"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. Yep. This has been right up there with slavery, denying woman and blacks the franchise and Japanese internment during WWII.

Tell ya what… let’s just scrap this whole thing. Close down, Gitmo? Sure. Let’s let them all go… let’m all go but before we do, roll’m all in pig fat before sending them off to their country of origin where they can sort it out. No fuss, no muss - get'm out of our hair. Deal?