Holder Your Fire
By Wes Keene | February 23, 2010 | In Category: National Security
In a press conference yesterday afternoon, Eric Holder wasted no time patting himself on the back for Najibullah Zazi’s guilty plea in court yesterday. As usual, he took much longer than necessary praising the benefits of prosecutions via criminal courts he controls. By his 10th paragraph he finally got to the meat of his self-serving dribble.
“This plot is further evidence that Al Qaeda continues to plan attacks against the United States. We are at war against a dangerous, intelligent and adaptable enemy, and we must use every weapon available to win that war. In this case, as it has in so many other cases, the criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists, one that works in concert with the intelligence community and our military. We will continue to use it to protect the American people from terrorism.
As I have stated on other occasions, the criminal justice system also contains powerful incentives to induce pleas that yield long sentences and gain intelligence that can be used in the fight against Al Qaeda. We will use all available tools whenever possible against suspected terrorists.”
I warned you it was long winded.
Truth is, it did work out pretty well this time. But Zazi was just a shuttle driver from Colorado. He didn’t have many rights to discovery in his case. Trying to use the Zazi case as an example of why KSM should be tried in criminal courts, in a bad analogy at best. KSM would have far greater rights to national intelligence under discovery for his defense than would Zazi.
I think Democrats misunderstand the nature of complains about criminal trials for terrorists. Most conservatives wouldn’t say you should never use the courts. Instead, we want to be selective and use the military tribunal when it makes sense to do so, i.e. KSM.
Certainly, Holder’s Justice Department is conflicted. Some of the very people now responsible for prosecuting terror (if criminal courts are used) are the same folks who have defended such terrorists in the past. Since these defendants have a right to representation in any court (including military tribunals). Why not make sure the prosecution isn’t playing on the same team as the defense?
Comments are closed.