For those of you who missed Attorney General Holder’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee it was an interesting exchange.  Republican Senators Sessions, Kyle, and Graham were the most vocal in their opposition to the Attorney General’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in an Article III court (federal court created by Article III of the Constitution) as oppose to a military tribunal.  The crux of the Republicans arguments are that KSM has promised to plead guilty in front of a military tribunal so why not allow him to do just that and trying KSM in the federal courts makes New York less safe.  As for making New York less safe, New York will always be a target as it has been since the 1993 World Trade Center attack.  So it’s hard to believe that a maximum security trial would make it more of a target.  In fact, one would think that the increased security would make it less of a target.  As for the wishes and preferences of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Holder responded by saying that a terrorist does not get to decide where he is tried that is my job.  Correct, that is the job of the Attorney General.  It is not the job of the person being charged nor is it the job of three rabid partisan senators who do not have all the facts surrounding the case and have not practiced law in decades.  Mr. Holder is the most experienced Attorney General to ever hold the post so excuse us if we trust his judgement over the opinions of Sessions, Kyle, and Graham. It’s amazing that these senators argued their position so vociferously without any of the pertinent information required to give an informed and reasonable opinion.  A side note:  Sessions tone with Holder at one point during their exchange was a bit disconserting.  But I digress.  In addition and for the record Senators, your opinions are not worth the air used to utter them if you lack critical facts needed to render such opinions. 

One reason why Holder may have chosen the constitutionally created and tested federal court system over the military tribunals is because such tribunals have been ruled unconstitutional twice by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Though Congress believes that it has remedied the constitutional defects of such tribunals the congressional  fix has yet to pass a SCOTUS review.  This is not the case to TEST Congress’ handiwork.  The first challenge any defense attorney worth his/her fee would raise is the constitutionality of the tribunals….such challenges can drag on indefinitely.   With an Article III court that argument is off the table.  Such courts have been around afterall since the beginning of this Republic. In so, being tried in federal court reduces the likelihood of a guilty verdict being overturned because of the unconstitutionality of the venue and process.  Reasonable minds may differ but operating under blind and willful ignorance when criticizing a decision of this magnitude is just ignorant.

Another thing.  This criminal says that he would like to plead guilty in a military tribunal.  Senators Sessions, Kyle, and Graham did you bother to ask why KSM would so readily offer that up?  How about the possibility that he believes by pleading guilty in a military setting America then recognizes him and al-Qaida as a legitimate enemy state.  In other words, America then elevates and legitmizes al-Qaida and him in the eyes of the world as a legitimate and proper enemy state.  Whereas adjudicating him in the federal court system reduces KSM to the status of a common criminal and he is treated like every other common criminal being put through the system.  A heinous common criminal but a common criminal just the same.  Prosecuting KSM in the federal system will prevent him and his cohorts the satisfaction of being recognized as a legitimate enemy engaged in an act of war.  

One last question to the GOP senators…..  

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration decided that al-Qaida member and 9/11 highjacker Zacarias Moussaoui would be tried in Virginia?   That’s the silence of hypocracy that you’re not hearing.