« • »
 

KSM and His “Fair Trial”

When I saw Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) on Fox News Sunday explaining why the trial was a good idea, his logic went much like this, and my thought pattern mirrored Krauthammer’s below:

So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

We’re going to engage in a show trial to show how our trials aren’t show trials. Welcome to Obamaland.

Read Charles Krauthammer.

Tags: , , ,

This entry was posted on Friday, November 20th, 2009 at 9:46 am and is filed under News & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

 

2 Responses to “KSM and His “Fair Trial””

  Cleary Squared Says:
November 20th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Good point.

If Obama fails to convince the US that criminal trials for terrorists do the same job as military tribunals, I can bet the next time a terror attack happens in the US, the experiment for show trials will never be repeated. On the other hand, I can see the government denying KSH the death they so desire and putting them in a Supermax prison for the rest of their lives – in solitary confinement and without the “plush” accomodations Gitmo had. It won’t discourage the hardcore terrorists, but the small-fry who despises America won’t like being jailed in the country they hate.

  
  Mr. G Says:
November 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

You can also bet that the judge who takes this trial is more likely to be a liberal who will set them free or significantly reduce the charges. The judge who puts them away would ruin his career. The whole trial will be put under a microscope. Plus any judge who takes the case marks himself and his family for death and jihadists don’t operate under a statue of limitations. Military courts are staffed with people who have signed on to and are trained to handle themselves under this kind of threat. Civilian courts are not.

  
 

Leave a Reply