Failure is an Option

It wasn't that long ago – was it? -- that Attorney General Eric Holder was solemnly intoning judgment on the 9/11 conspirators by way of defending his decision to try them in a civilian court a stone's throw from Ground Zero. He assured us that, after being given a fair trial, the defendants would surely be found guilty and dealt with accordingly. He assured us that, in fact, no other option was possible, or even conceivable.

But now comes a slightly different tune – and you have to be on the “Obama frequency” to notice. To begin with, it seems that – in line with the usual guidelines for civilian trials – evidence based on “enhanced interrogation techniques” might not be admissible! What, all that work for nothing? And yet that's precisely what is being claimed. But fear not, we have plenty of other evidence that ought to be perfectly OK – er, we think. Stuff like “seized evidence, financial transactions, recorded phone conversations, and cooperating witnesses” -- you know, all that stuff we already had prior to 9/11 but didn't do anything about.

Notice the slippage here? From “a gold mine of intelligence” based on KSM's confession, we're now back to the same old pile of stuff that has to be somehow pieced together in a credible way. Of course, if the trial were in a military setting, all of this might have been different... but then we would not have had the stirring symbolic “value” of trying them at the scene of the crime. (And New Yorkers wouldn't be complaining about all the cost and inconvenience, and Chamber of Commerce-type douchebags in Pittsburgh wouldn't be volunteering to take it off their hands.)

And who, and where, are all of these “witnesses”? I mean, who are we talking about? This isn't a matter of trolling the bars and alleyways of Chicago for losers willing to provide evidence against the Mob in exchange for getting set up for life in the witness protection program. Who would make a halfway decent witness except for other fanatics – and what are the chances that other fanatics would be willing to spill the beans (even if they wound up gaining weight while in Guantanamo)?

Saith Jack Cloonan, a retired FBI agent: “Prosecutors are going to want to put on a case that in their minds [note the expression] is overwhelming and that can leave absolutely no doubt... to put on coerced statements or some sort of flimsy circumstantial case would be disastrous.” So... what this means is, it could fail after all! I mean, look at all the “air-tight cases” that have failed over the years, leaving the populace in a state of scandal and astonishment. (Look at O.J.!) People continue to underestimate the arbitrariness, cupidity, and randomness of our system of “justice” -- and now, when it “really counts”, we're about to be treated to just another inane example.

“This is not only the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed... the entire Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder's place in history will be on trial as well.” Well, that's the good news, I guess – especially since the Obama administration is full to the brim with hacks who, if justice had been served, would already have been in jail at the time of their confirmation hearings. But in any case, I can't help but notice that anything the Obama crew touches quickly melts down into a puddle of absurdity. And I think this is ultimately because none of these people has any real concept of true justice, or of standards of conduct – they are purely political animals, which means they are sheer relativists and opportunists, whose concerns go no further than serving themselves and their supposed boss. And here they are bringing to trial a bunch of 9/11 conspirators who, say what you will, at least had some principles – and this may be the most humiliating juxtaposition of all, not that any of them will notice.