President Barack Obama's and Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try any of the terrorists in the civilian courts is utterly ridiculous. Even if the terrorists are tried in the federal courts for committing an illegal act of war, which should be on top of the list of charges brought, a question I asked here begs for further study:
Here’s something else: are there 12 people out there who could be found to make up a jury?
Another question is the one that is the title of the post: what kind of justice does The One think he's showing the world? Here's another: does the U.S. really have anything to prove to anyone, especially in the Muslim world? After all, it was the U.S. that was attacked on 9/11 and for the several years prior to that; the U.S. is the aggrieved party here, not the Muslim world.
But let's return to the question of what kind of justice does this administration think they are going to show. Obama has already stated that he is going to continue to hold those terrorists, in some foreign prison camp (probably Bagram, Afghanistan after the Gitmo prison is possibly shut down), the administration deems too dangerous to release, even of said terrorists that aren't tried in any court, civilian or military. The lefties are all up in arms over this already, which may be one of the reasons why Obama and Holder are going down this road to try the 9/11 terrorists in New York. However, wouldn't a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be one of those too dangerous to release, even if acquitted? Both Allahpundit and John Hinderaker ask the then obvious question, what is the point of having a trial? I agree, but only in regards to a trial in the federal civilian courts. Tom Maguire adds the why:
And what are these trials going to look like? As the Times and WaPo explain, a lot of the evidence may not be admissible under normal Federal rules.
This wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue under the military tribunals; plus, a trial there would recognize that KSM et al. are still under the jurisdiction of the military, which could then still hold the terrorists even if there is an acquittal since the terrorists would still be considered at war with the U.S.
What is being shown by this administration is a hypocrisy of justice. Once in the hands of the civilians, the military would probably not have any sway, meaning that any terrorists who are acquitted would almost assuredly have to be freed, something that would kill The One's chances at re-election (provided the trial takes place prior to 2012; there's no guarantee of that either), if bringing KSM to the U.S. for prosecution in the civilian courts doesn't do that already. Even if The One and Holder are doing this to embarrass the Bush administration, there still has to be a conviction of these terrorists. That, in and of itself, opens the Obama administration to loud and fully-throated criticism on both the left and the right to charges of politicizing justice and complete judicial hypocrisy. Everyone knows this, and Obama did nothing to assuage that when, while in Japan on his Asia tour, he more or less preempted Holder on Friday after Jennifer Loven asked about this:
MR. GIBBS: Jennifer Loven with AP -- questions fewer in number. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister. President Obama, how can you assure the American people that a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now that your administration has now decided will take place in a civilian court in New York, will be safe and secure, but also not result in an innocent verdict for him?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I believe that the Attorney General is going to be making an announcement this morning in the United States, this evening here. I don't want to preempt his news conference. This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision.
Here's the thing that I will say. I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it. And I'm sure we'll have additional things to say after the Attorney General's press conference.
My take on what The One said, along with AG Holder, is they, and the rest of the administration, expect a guilty verdict and refuse, utterly refuse, to acknowledge the possibility that an alternative outcome may be reached. The One and Holder might as well have fellow Democrat Mike Nifong lead the prosecution.
The only thing The One is showing the world is that this political decision by the administration is a travesty of justice. They want to show the world that the 9/11 terrorists can be tried in the civilian court system, under all the rules contained therein, yet have already said that some terrorists can't be released anyway because the U.S. knows these terrorists are at war with the U.S. In order to punish KSM and the others brought to New York for trial is a guaranteed guilty verdict, which goes against everything in the U.S. Constitution.
The One is better off having someone put two bullets in the back of the heads of each of these terrorists as it would be more befitting the Chicago Way. It would be less hypocritical.