Terrorism Trials in New York, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

In a continuing effort to prove that his administration is the most clueless of all time, President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, have decided to transfer hardened terrorists, caught on the battlefield and subjected to coercive interrogation techniques, to our country's largest city, into a legal system that presumes innocence and is heavily weighted in evidentiary rulings toward defendants. What could possibly go wrong?

There is so much that is wrong about this decision that it is difficult to know where to start.

According to the Attorney General, civilian courts are, “most likely to lead to a positive result,” for the conviction of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his compatriots. Really? More likely than, say, KSM pleading guilty before a military tribunal and asking to be executed, as he did in late 2008, before Obama swept into office and put all military tribunals on hold?

In fact, as any of us who lived through the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King trials can attest, American jurisprudence can be very fickle. Our judicial system is geared to offer maximum advantage to the accused. The accused are presumed innocent and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. Furthermore, there are very strict guidelines as to the evidence that may be presented. Except under very limited conditions, a search warrant is required to search a suspect’s property. There are very strict “chain of evidence” guidelines as to how that evidence is handled. Defendants cannot be compelled to testify against themselves and are, in fact, guaranteed the right to have an attorney present during their interrogation. Physical duress is strictly prohibited and even mental duress is very limited during an interrogation. In fact, these rights must be enumerated to the suspect or any evidence or confession that is obtained before the recitation of these Miranda rights may not be used during court proceedings.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured on a battlefield by soldiers, not policemen. Miranda rights were not read. No warrants were issued. An extradition warrant was never issued. He asked for an attorney and was denied.

His confession was elicited by enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, which have been decried by this very administration as torture. Is there anyone who thinks that a judge might not have a little problem with this?

Holder and Obama profess that this will not be a problem. Holder told a Senate panel that, “Failure is not an option.” Oh really? Then why presume innocence? Is this just a show trial with a pre-determined outcome or are we really going to try these terrorists in a fair manner? And what happens if they are found not guilty? Will they be able to freely walk the streets?

President Obama, when asked whether it was offensive to try KSM in a civilian court stupidly said, “I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” So now, the President of the United States has already publicly declared that the defendants of a civilian trial has pre-judged the outcome and declared an appropriate sentence. A defense attorney should have a field day with this. Remember, Charles Manson was almost granted a mistrial because Richard Nixon declared him guilty on a national news magazine show, thus tainting the jury pool. No doubt, the 9/11 terrorists’ lawyers will attempt the same tactic.

The fact of the matter is that civilian courts are poorly equipped to deal with prisoners of war. This is without precedent in our history, as Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC), no one’s idea of a raving right-wing nut job, pointed out to Eric Holder at a Senate hearing on the issue.

In addition, there are national security implications. By law, the prosecution must turn over any implicating evidence it possesses to the defense. In a military tribunal, the defense attorneys are military members with security clearances and experience handling classified material. There are no such safeguards in a civilian court. In fact, in a civilian court, the defendant may act as his/her own attorney and be granted unlimited access to this material. Andy McCarthy, the prosecutor of the Blind Sheik and his co-defendants in the first World Trade Center bombing and an avid opponent of civilian trials for terrorists, describes how he was forced to turn over a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Blind Sheik case which, within 48 hrs., had spread throughout terror networks, alerting members that they were under suspicion causing them to flee the country. Likewise, the 9/11 terrorists will have access to documents describing our counter-terrorism intelligence, possibly putting confidential sources and techniques at risk.

So, why bring terrorists who wanted to plead guilty in a military court into a civilian court where the outcome is far from assured? Simple. This is a sop to Obama’s far-left base. Obama knows that putting the Bush administration and the CIA on trial directly, as the left-wing nut cases would like, would be political suicide. This is a method to indirectly put the Bush administration and their techniques for fighting the war on terrorism on trial. In my opinion, it would not displease Obama if the terrorists were acquitted on a technicality. This would be the ultimate vindication of the left against the Bush administration.

It would also be a travesty of justice.