A Risky Proposition for Democrats
By William Kristol
November 13, 2009
This AP story explains how a federal civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four associates poses legal and political risks for Barack Obama:
But, the AP fails to note, the political consequences will also extend to 54 Senate Democrats who voted recently against legislation to bar such civil trials--and to Democrats in the House who will be put on the spot as well. Congress could insist on military tribunals, and indeed in the past it has provided for such tribunals. I imagine Republicans on the Hill will try to move to overrule Holder, with legislation in the Senate, and with legislation and perhaps a discharge petition in the House. Holder can take his lumps for his reckless ideological decision if he wishes. Will congressional Democrats follow him off the cliff?
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is willing to. He’s quoted by AP as saying that "by trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system—a system respected around the world.” Do non-Vermont and non-left-wing Democrats really think we need what is likely to be a disgusting and dangerous spectacle in order to demonstrate something “to the world?”
I suspect some Democrats might find more to agree with in the comments of President Bush's last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, a former New York federal judge who presided over the blind Sheikh case. Mukasey objects that federal courts are not well suited to this task, and that trial in open court "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried.”
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have embarked on a path that’s perilous for their party. We’ll see how many congressional Democrats choose to follow them.
Copyright 2003-2006 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org