ABC News’ Jake Tapper is asking a question that anybody whose neuron spark hasn’t been extinguished by partisan politics, PC pandering and unabashed Bush Derangement Syndrome: What if a 9/11 terrorist defendant is found not guilty?

The answers Tapper is getting from Obama administration officials is “There’s no way in hell they’ll be found not guilty… but if they are, we’ll worry about it then.” Amazing:

“I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice,” President Obama said in Tokyo. “The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it.”

But what happens if KSM or any of the other 9/11 defendants the Obama administration is bringing to New York for criminal prosecutions — including Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi — are somehow found not guilty?

Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off the question, saying, “I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome — in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court.”

Yeah, and O.J. Simpson’s trial was a “we’ll get a conviction with one hand tied behind our back” case for the prosecution too.

Holder’s answer is telling and seemingly counter-productive to Obama’s stated goal. The case made by Obama has been that the military justice system has been so corrupted by years of Bush abuse that no “man-caused disaster suspect” in U.S. custody could possibly get a fair trial in a military tribunal. Now they’re telling us that the only suspects who will be allowed access to U.S. civil courts are the ones who are “certain” convictions. Isn’t this kind of preconceived outcome the whole reason Obama clamed to want to get away from military courts?

Naturally, this has little to nothing to do with “justice” in the conventional sense and everything to do with making a case against Bush/Cheney, who may well end up as the real defendants, or in the very least set up as the fall guys if the case against KSM and the others goes badly.

Another head-scratcher is that in a civil trial you’re supposed to find an unbiased jury of a defendant’s peers. Naturally, when you’re trying somebody for plotting 9/11, the place you’d be able to find people who were least touched by that day would be in New York City. Oddly enough, the most sympathetic domestic jury that could possibly be culled would be to call most of Obama’s old buddies. Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and Van Jones wouldn’t be biased against the accused in the least. Otherwise, if he’s going to find a jury of KSM’s peers, Holder will have to fly in a dozen members of Al Qaeda — taking “12 Angry Men” to a whole new level.

The father of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded, is “sickened” that the terrorists — er, “alleged man-caused disaster perpetrators” — were brought to New York for civil trial.

Judea Pearl believes that bringing them to New York for civil trial will give terrorists a very public platform — but with every word spoken, the Obama administration makes it louder and clearer: that’s the whole point.

To answer Jake Tapper’s question, “What if one or more defendants are found not guilty?” — That’s simple: Blame Bush.

Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.