MORE ON THE UPCOMING TERROR TRIAL IN NEW YORK - AT 9:54 P.M. ET:   John Hinderaker at Power Line says this about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial that Eric Holder announced today:

Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury. Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so, they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?

Of course, of course.  If the trial goes rogue - and in a city like New York it's possible have O.J. Simpson II, what will the Obama White House do?  Will they "follow our justice system"?  Or will they find a way to hold this monster.

Hinderaker also points out that The New York Times is already falling in line, referring to Mohammed as a "suspect."  He is not a suspect in any real-world analysis.  He brags about his role in 9-11.  In the real world he's an enemy combatant, and this is war.

A Fox News report notes that there is substantial worry that we will lose a great deal of intelligence information:

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who led the prosecution in the case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, said public trials will provide a "banquet of intelligence information" for the vast Al Qaeda network, especially operatives in Afghanistan.

"It's a massively stupid decision when we're actually at war with them," McCarthy said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We have to give them all kinds of information about our methods of intelligence that can only make them more efficient at killing us."

And...

...Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, said bringing Mohammed to New York was "an unnecessary risk" that would result in the disclosure of confidential information on U.S. intelligence tactics. Kyl maintained the trial of Rahman, the so-called "blind sheik," caused "valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods" to be revealed to the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

And...

Michael Mukasey, Holder's predecessor under the Bush administration, said the decision was not only unwise but based on what he called a refusal to acknowledge that the U.S. it at war -- and that the crimes perpetrated on Sept. 11 constitute war crimes.

Fox points out that some are actually in favor of Obama/Holder's decision on grounds that the attacks of 9-11 were not "military infractions."

Unbelievable. 

November 13, 2009