Ask the 1993 WTC prosecutor what he thinks
So, if the Left’s best argument for trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the civilian justice system is that we’ve done so well getting terrorists convicted there before, why is Andy McCarthy, the prosecutor of the case they cite the most—the 1993 WTC bombing—so dead set against it?
He’ll tell you himself:
For what it’s worth, I think the team I led in the Blind Sheikh case did an excellent job, and we also convicted everybody. But that is not the measure of success. It’s not whether the government wins the litigation; it’s whether the national security of the United States has been harmed more by having the trial than it would have been harmed by handling the detainees in a different manner.
Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians.
The question is not whether the prosecutors are able, whether they’ll do a spectacular job, and whether they’ll get these guys. They are extraordinarily competent, they will perform at a very high level, and I’ll be shocked if they don’t win the case. The issue is: What damage will we sustain by doing things this way, and is there a way we could do them without sustaining that much damage
Ah, but McCarthy must be afraid of terrorists. And he must not trust our civilian criminal legal system. And what would he know about it, anyway?
As was already brought out, Obama is already at a place where he does not care. Maybe he imagines that his radiance will convince the US to engage in self-destructive behavior. The Italian adage “he was so good he was good for nothing” comes to mind.
They are truly scary. One positive note, this way the silly people who voted for chimera will learn. (I know that is optimistic, perhaps foolishly optimistic, but it should not be ruled out).
McCarthy also points out that the other day Obama gave the KSM defense grounds for claiming that Obama has tainted the jury.
More Obamateur Hour [Andy McCarthy]
In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be “convicted” and had “the death penalty applied to him” . . . and then said he wasn’t “pre-judging” the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him – by NBC’s Chuck Todd – that the first statement would be taken as the president’s interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn’t his intention. I’m sure it wasn’t – he’s trying to contain the political damage caused by his decision – but that won’t matter. He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.
It is readily apparent that the reason for trying KSM in a civilian court is to bring the interrogation methods used by the Bush administration on trial into the bargain. The other terrorists in the group are there, either because they fit the same criteria, or to mask the rationale for civilian trial in the first place.
No doubt the Obama administration is looking forward to the righteous outrage of the people (eagerly stoked by a corrupt media) at the behavior of our intelligence services under the auspices of the Bush administration. However, Obama could well be blamed too, for re-opening the wounds of 9/11. If he is, it will seal his fate as a one-term president.
Highlander Says: However, Obama could well be blamed too, for re-opening the wounds of 9/11. If he is, it will seal his fate as a one-term president.
To be hionest, I’m not sure the Republic can survive three more years of the America-hating man-child Barry Soetoro.