In my previous post, I noted three possible outcomes of the Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial in New York City, but there is a fourth one I hadn't considered until last night. That outcome is a mistrial. Out of all the outcomes, this poses the greatest threat. Not only does it include the problem of letting accused Muslim terrorists mingle with Muslim converts in general population (which, contrary to Leftist assumptions, may still happen on a daily basis), but it adds a new element: the negative impact if it succeeds.
Commentators who are following this situation have noted that the Obama Administration wants to use the KSM trial to prosecute the Bush Administration by proxy, and this is a valid assumption to make. The issue then becomes what happens if it goes to trial and KSM and his cohorts are acquitted. After statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama himself, it would be devastating to their public image. After all, the Left says that they wouldn't proceed with the case in a civil court if it wasn't a slam dunk, right?
The thing is...it's not a slam dunk. Not by a longshot. With some of the more controversial elements to the case, a good lawyer could easily get the other terrorist suspects off without a problem, leaving only KSM. Then, after a little more legal wrangling, the lawyer could get KSM off, leaving no convictions in one of the biggest trials in recent history and the ultimate problem still unresolved. And what happens if all of the suspected terrorists suddenly disappear?
We wind up with nothing.
Oh, sure, there will be the obligatory "If only President Bush followed the Geneva Convention" comments from the Left, but that's by design. See, the beauty of this strategy from the Left is that Obama and Holder can deflect criticism to their predecessors without risking any political capital, and the general public would probably go along with that.
What made me think of this possibility were statements made by Holder and Obama expressing confidence that KSM and his fellow terror suspects would be convicted. That reminded me of something Charles Manson attempted to do during his trial after a newspaper headline quoted then-President Richard Nixon making a similar statement about Manson and his followers. What better way for KSM to achieve the same goal than to introduce Holder and Obama's statements into the court as proof he cannot get a fair trial?
This is why it's a bad idea to treat international terrorism as a criminal matter. It's way too easy for those who seek us harm to use our own laws against us.