THE OUTRAGE IS BUILDING - AT 7:02 P.M. ET:  In our first item today we reported that the reputed mastermind behind the 9-11 attack, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, will be tried in New York City, in an ordinary civilian federal court.  He will be tried as a common criminal, not as a man who made war on the United States, resulting in an onslaught that killed more Americans than did the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Through the day, the sense of outrage over this decision started to build, as the realization sank in that the Obama administration, speaking through Attorney General Eric Holder, seems determined to walk us back to the days before 9-11, when terrorism was seen as just a criminal act, another entry on the police blotter.  Don't send the Army.  Send Joe Friday.

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, showing the clarity of thought that made him a great mayor, pointed out what a farce this trial could become.  It could become a show trial, in which the United States could be put on trial by a defense team that, you may be sure, will be heavily influenced by the legal tactics of the hard left.  There could be a hung jury.  There could even be an acquittal.  The very presence of the trial in New York City will make the city, once more, a prime terrorist target.  There could be attempts to call former President Bush as a witness, to humiliate him.  There will be attempts to change the venue, questioning whether a terrorist could get a "fair" trial in New York.  The issue of torture will be brought up, and a judge might throw out all charges on grounds of coercion.

And there are these things, that we add:  Who will the judge be?  Will he (or she) be an experienced federal judge, or someone with "empathy" for the defendants?  Will some groups - like Jews, relatives of policemen, firefighters or military personnel - be excluded from the jury?  Will the defense insist that Muslims be on the jury?  How will classified information be handled?  What kind of intimidation is possible, especially if names of the jurors are made public?

The idea of giving an ordinary civilian trial to a man who's made war on America flies in the face of our history, as readers Rob and Sandy Paton point out in an excellent message to Urgent Agenda:

During his press conference this morning, Attorney General Eric Holder said that  “for over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law” in seeking justice. This may be true. However, in the face of historical precedents the Attorney General’s decision to try these terrorists in a civilian court is questionable...
  
 ...In 1942, eight German saboteurs were put ashore by submarine on Long Island and in Florida. All eight agents were captured and tried by a military court. Six were hanged, and the other two, who were imprisoned, had their sentences commuted and were deported to Germany in 1948.
  
In November 1944, two more agents, one of them a disaffected American named William Colepaugh, were put ashore by a German submarine. Even though Colepaugh was an American citizen, the Attorney General referred his case to a military tribunal. President Truman later commuted Colepaugh’s sentence.
  
It seems to us that Holder’s knowledge of American history is as sketchy as that of his boss, the president.

COMMENT:  A great deal of material is pouring in on this issue, and the criticisms of Holder's decision (Or Obama's) are sharp, clear and convincing.  More about this later tonight.

November 13, 2009