Holder Defends Terrorists Trials in New York

I've written two pieces this week on Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try terrorists in New York. In the first, I argue that Holder and President Obama don't understand Terrorism. In the second, I point out that when we have tried terrorists in courts in the past, we have unintentionally given intelligence to terrorist still overseas.

Today I want to look at a couple of quotes from Eric Holder's testimony this week before the Senate. In this testimony, AG Holder is trying to defend his decision to try terrorists in New York. I think there were two very important things to come out of this testimony. Here is the first. For those of you who don't like FOX News, I apologize, but I wanted to show this statement by Mr. Holder in his own words.

I believe this clip is important because it rejects a defense of Mr. Holder I have heard a lot this week. A number of people defending his decision have said, "We aren't really at war right now." Holder destroy's that argument with this quote:

I know that we are at war. I know that we are at war with a viscous enemy that targets our soldiers on the battlefields of Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home.

I am not a fan of Senator Lindsey Graham. However, he did his homework, and really took the Attorney General apart in this clip. Thanks to Moe Lane at Red State for initially posting this.




Again, there is a very specific point that is important here. Sen. Graham asks Mr. Holder what precedent there is for this decision. Mr. Holder can't answer him, and isn't even prepared for the question. That means the AG didn't know what precedent there was, and made this decision based on other considerations that had nothing to do with precedent.


AG Holder has said this week that this will be a slam dunk case. If this case is suppose to show that we are willing to give terrorists the world over the benefit of the doubt, and try them in civilian courts, how can this be a slam dunk? Nothing in a civilian court is guaranteed. Eric Holder has said that if the terrorists are acquitted, they will not be released into the country. If a judge orders them released, how can the AG not release them into our country? Eric Holder has also said that if for some reason he doesn't get a conviction, he has other charges that he can try them on to get a conviction. Does this sound like the US showing the world how we stand behind our civilian court system? Also keep in mind that the same day Holder announced KSM would stand trial in New York, he announced that the men behind the USS Cole attack would face a military tribunal. None of these statements, or the ones I provide clips for above make any sense if the goal is to get a civilian conviction from these terrorists.


However, if the AG's goal is to put the previous administration on trial, they suddenly make perfect sense. Any good defense attorney will know that if he doesn't have a good defense, he should put the U.S. Government on trial, and try to get his client's off that way. Both President Obama and AG Holder know this. So it looks to me like the simplest answer is that they aren't concerned with the outcome of the trial. I am sure in their minds they have already gotten a conviction. What they are really concerned with is putting President Bush and his administration on trial. This political stunt may well backfire on them.

Terrorists in Civillain Courts: What Does History Say?

On Sunday, I posted a blog on why I thought President Obama and Attorney General Holder grossly misunderstand terrorism. We are told by the administration that our nation has a very successful history of trying terrorism in civilian courts. Seattle Dave even pointed in the comments for my post that three conservatives sided with the administration and said the following:

Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.

I thought it might be helpful to look at three high profile cases to see if this is really the case.

Case One: The Blind Sheik

Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheik" was tried for terrorism in the 1990's. It was alleged that he was behind the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993. His trial was a very high profile event. He was not convicted of terrorism but was instead found guilty of "seditious conspiracy". This is an easier charge to prove in a court of law than terrorism. It was believed the Blind Sheik was involved in planning 15 bomb attacks through out New York.

The trial for the Blind Sheik is believed to have provided valuable intelligence for Al-Queda. Michael Mukasey, previous Attorney General, and a man who presided over the trial of the Blind Sheik, writing last month illustrated this with an example:

...the government was required to disclose, as it is routinely in conspiracy cases, the identity of all known co-conspirators, regardless of whether they are charged as defendants. One of those co-conspirators, relatively obscure in 1995, was Osama bin Laden. It was later learned that soon after the government's disclosure the list of unindicted co-conspirators had made its way to bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, where he then resided. He was able to learn not only that the government was aware of him, but also who else the government was aware of.

This is just one example of court evidence providing valuable intelligence to terrorists. The Blind Sheik's trial also had the distinction of getting the defense attorney in trouble. Lynne Stewart was a member of the Sheik's defense team, and was convicted of passing messages to the Sheik's followers in foreign countries inciting them to perform terrorist attacks.

Case Two: Zacarias Moussaoui

The alleged "20th Hijacker" also had a few intelligence problems. Moussaoui represented himself in court, made a mockery of the trial, and even verbally attacked the judge during the proceedings. Since Moussaoui represented himself, the prosecution had to turn over their case to the "defendants lawyer" under discovery. According to CNBC News, the government admitted they turned over classified documents to Moussaoui that he shouldn't have had access too. This is important because KSM has decided to represent himself in the upcoming New York trials.

Case Three: Ramzi Yousef

Like the Sheik,Ramzi Yousef was also found guilty of "seditious activities" in spite of being a known terrorists and in spite of being involved in terrorists activities. Once again, material presented in court helped our enemies overseas. From Michael Mukasey:

Again, during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, an apparently innocuous bit of testimony in a public courtroom about delivery of a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists still at large that one of their communication links had been compromised. That link, which in fact had been monitored by the government and had provided enormously valuable intelligence, was immediately shut down, and further information lost.

We have been told by President Obama, Attorney General Holder, some conservatives, and other officials that our court system can handle trying terrorist. We have been told they can do it successfully, and without putting our security at risk. In these three specific cases, that didn't happen. In these high profile cases the government was unable to prevent sensitive information from getting in the hands of our enemies. In these cases the government failed to prosecute terrorists in civilian courts, "...without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards."

Can we really expect the government to do better when trying the plotters of the 9/11 attacks?