The recent debate about whether the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be held in New York City has overshadowed the question of whether the trial should even be held by a federal criminal court rather than by a military tribunal. The obvious answer, as indicated by a recent exchange between Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Attorney General Eric Holder, is that holding the trial in federal court will make a mockery of our justice system.
From the transcription provided by Jim Geraghty :
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: “I don’t think you can say that failure to convict is not an option, when we have juries in this country.”Attorney General Eric Holder: I have thought about that possibility. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country . . .
Grassley: My understanding is that if for some reason he’s not convicted, or a judge lets him off on a technicality, he’ll be an enemy combatant, so you’re right back where you started.
Ed Morrissey has the best and most succinct argument for why the trial shouldn’t be held in federal court system:
Not only will we be right back where we started, it will expose the federal trial as nothing more than a show trial. Show trials are conducted by despots and dictators to give only a thin veneer of legality to political detentions and executions. If the state isn’t prepared to abide by the decision of the court, including dismissals and acquittals, then the use of the trial system is worse than useless. It demeans the federal system needed for Americans to seek unbiased justice.
What do you think? Should the show trial commence and should it be held in New York City?
