Obama and Holder make many mistakes in terror trial discussion

By Shoshana Bryen

WASHINGTON, D.C.–Was there ever an administration that cared so much how it sounded to itself, but so little how it sounded to the American people? The President’s tin ear was on full display as he tried to reassure the public about the soundness of the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York civilian courtroom-after he tried to pass it off as Attorney General Holder’s idea, to which he, the President, was unable to object.
 
MSNBC reported that in an interview with NBC News, President Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”
 
Americans are offended by the civilian trial NOT because we are concerned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will not be convicted-although the President surely tripped over his allegedly silver tongue by convicting and sentencing him before the jury did-but rather are offended because an act of war is properly tried in a military court. Congress took seriously the mandate to construct a military tribunal that comports with American law and even Mr. Holder plans to try others there. Americans are offended because the administration is offering Constitutional protections to someone who a) is not an American; b) is a terrorist-not entitled even to the more limited protections of the Geneva Convention; and c) spit on our country in word and deed. Americans are offended because the court will be required to look for a “jury of his peers”-and we don’t think we qualify.
 
Attorney General Holder was, if possible, worse. Testifying before Congress, Mr. Holder was asked what would happen if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others are acquitted. He replied, “Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don’t expect that we will have a contrary result.”
 
Announcing the verdict before the trial is in the best tradition of Star Chambers, Soviet show trials, kangaroo courts and banana republics. And if the government should somehow be faced with a verdict it doesn’t like, well…  Mr. Holder told Congress that even if there is an acquittal, “that doesn’t mean that person would be released into our country.” Oh, really? What do you propose to do with someone the court sets free?
 
He continued, “We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready….I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheik Mohammed has to say at trial-and no one else needs to be either.” 
 
Thank you for the pep talk, Mr. Holder. But Americans are not scared of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or what he will say-he’s done the worst he can do, we are still here and here we will remain. But if your posturing is intended to prove that the current administration is more moral than any other, then the cavalier attitude you and the President are taking toward an independent judiciary and the rule of law makes it hard not to worry about you. 
 
This is a very bad decision for precedent and security reasons, but we believe America’s institutions are strong enough to withstand a trial where the verdict is not given to the judge by the government-even if you and the President don’t.

*

Bryen is special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. (JINSA). Her column is sponsored by Waxie Sanitary Supply in memory of Morris Wax, longtime JINSA supporter and national board member.