Preemptive surrender

Because the Obama administration is such a target-rich environment for wrong, wrongheaded policies, it’s hard to single out just one in particular. The competition is fierce. However, the decision to try 9/11 conspirators in civilian court may possibly set new standards of monumental folly and moral blindness even for an administration which is a trendsetter in that dubious department. It’s so wrong in so many different ways that one has difficulty keeping count.

1.We’re told that this “sends a message” to the world. Indeed it does. It sends the message that we can be played by our enemies. It sends the message that our titular Commander-in-Chief is a pushover.

Moreover, the message we send is not the message the Muslim world will receive. Their coverage will be filtered through Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabia, &c. Do you think that will be fair and balanced?

2.We’re also told that this is a reinstatement of American values. Really?

Well, a basic American value is the social contract. Signatories to the social contract have civil rights. They also have commensurate responsibilities.

We are now ceding civil rights to our mortal enemies-–who, of course, enjoy all the rights without the commensurate responsibilities. They derive all the benefits of our system without having to buy into our system.

Does that represent American values? No. That represents a fundamental breach of the social contract.

3.Our system is tilted in favor of the defendant–as it should be. The presumption of innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the 9/11 conspirators are given a “fair” trial, then acquittal is the default outcome. It becomes an uphill climb for prosecutors to overcome that steep presumption.

4.Apropos (3), it’s easy to see how the 9/11 conspirators could be acquitted on technicalities. Evidence gathered in the course of coercive interrogation is inadmissible–and rightly so.

The “defendants” weren’t Mirandized on the battlefield. We didn’t have teams of CSI-style criminologists securing the “crime scene” while ensuring an evidentiary chain-of-custody.

5.To my knowledge, the Feds have no control over the selection of the judge. That’s a deliberately randomized process. And I think it’s fair to say that NYC probably has more bleeding-heart judges than Texas. So it’s like rolling loaded dice.

6.The process of discovery would require the gov’t to turn over classified information regarding our methods and sources of intelligence. That would have several destructive consequences:

i) It would tip off our enemies.

ii) It would tell our allies and we can’t keep secrets. As such, our sources would quickly dry up.

iii) Apropos (ii), this would do long-term damage. Even if Obama is a one-term president, allies won’t be inclined to share intel in such a fluid political situation.

7.It would only take one sympathetic juror to acquit. Think you can’t find a sympathetic juror in NYC? What about Muslim jurors? They can’t be summarily excused, since that would be “racist.”

8.Then there’s the security of the judge, jurors, alternates, and their families. If you think that’s hypothetical, think again. To take one example from the not so distant past:

Sharon Rogers happens to be married to U.S. Navy Captain Will Rogers III, commander of the U.S.S. Vincennes, the guided-missile cruiser that mistakenly shot down an Iranian passenger jet last July, killing all 290 passengers and crew members. Eight months later, his wife was driving to her job as a fourth- grade teacher at the elite La Jolla Country Day School. As she paused for a red light, Rogers heard a bang in her Toyota van; she leaped out, unharmed, just before the vehicle burst into flames. Investigators believe a terrorist pipe bomb was placed in the van in retaliation for the downing of the Iranian airliner.
Since then Rogers has become an exile of sorts in her community. While she is free to come and go as she pleases from her temporary home at a San Diego naval base, she is under the constant eye of four bodyguards from the Naval Investigative Service. She is also reportedly wired for sound so that the security officers can listen in on all her conversations.

Worst of all, Rogers was made to feel like an outcast at the school where she taught for twelve years. On March 13 headmaster Timothy Burns told Rogers that she could not return immediately and that he did not know what "we are going to do about this." The next day the school received a bomb threat, which turned out to be a hoax. Then, when Rogers did not receive her contract renewal on the same day as other faculty members, she fired off an angry letter to the parents of her students, saying she did not pose a risk to the children's safety. She was later barred from the campus but continues to collect her paychecks and to assist a substitute teacher with lesson plans. Many San Diegans, angered by the way Rogers was treated, accused the school of gross ingratitude and cowardice. Others argued that Rogers should stay away for the safety of the students. Said Jean Andrews, a political consultant and the mother of one of Rogers' former pupils: "I don't think children's bodies are the appropriate weapons to be used on a frontline offensive against terrorist attacks."

Meanwhile, private security guards prowl the halls of La Jolla Country Day. Students have been instructed how to evacuate the building during a bomb threat, and a psychologist has counseled Rogers' pupils.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957478-2,00.html#ixzz0X4ekJ0TI