What Happens If KSM Is Found Not Guilty?
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort
Jake Tapper asks the question, but more interesting to me is this answer by Eric Holder:
Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off the question, saying, “I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome — in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court.”
What is the purpose of a trial if you will only use it when the verdict is assured, but won’t release the accused when it is not? The idea put forth by the left that civilian trials of non-American combatants are necessary for justice is completely undermined here.
All prosecutors consider the likelihood of achieving a guilty verdict when bringing a trial, but normally the choice is between a trial or letting the defendant go free. KSM is not going to go free regardless of whether this trial is held, nor should he. We already know he is guilty.
The decision, only made when a guilty verdict is assured, to hold a civilian trial in lieu of a military tribunal shows just how pointless such trials are. They are a stage act – pure theater put on for the benefit of a certain part of the President’s constituency. Eric Holder has essentially admitted that there is no justice-based reason why KSM is being tried in civilian court instead of the adequately equipped, and better suited, military tribunals established for the purpose. He is doing it simply because it provides opportunity to pander to an untenable position hatched in thoughtless opposition under President Bush.
I serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.