'Testifying for the first time on the decision, [Eric] Holder delivered a point-by-point rebuttal to his critics who say he's treating the suspects with a "pre-9/11 mentality."
"I know that we are at war," Holder declared.
The attorney general said he knew his decision would be controversial and considered it a "tough call." He said the defendants could have been tried in either military or civilian court, since, "The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law."
But he stood by his call to bring the five defendants into federal court, saying he considered "every alternative" and determined that New York is the venue "most likely to obtain justice for the American people."
"We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong ... and our people are ready," Holder said. Asked what might happen if the suspects are acquitted, Holder replied: "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."'
Yeah, and no one expected the Spanish inquisition!
Why is it that Obama appointees are such intellectual midgets? He considered every alternative? There were only TWO alternatives, a civilian court or a military tribunal. Given that 'The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law' why weren't allied bomber pilots who bombed German cities put on trial in Nazi Germany for murder? For a very good reason. War has a separate set of laws to personal acts of violence. As schoolchildren and the more advanced invertabrates know.
So first, super-low-IQ Holder says 'I know we are at war' and then a moment later that a civilian court in 'New York is the venue "most likely to obtain justice for the American people"'. Er, Hello. Can you say mentally challenged?
Major Hasan (Piss be upon him) had a business card with SOA on it- Soldier of Allah. The 9/11 hijackers were soldiers of Allah too. So were the men who organised their activities, and paid for their training. The wahhabists who want to force the whole world to submit to islam all consider themselves soldiers of Allah. And behave accordingly. Its a strange world where you just can't persuade the people you are fighting, the people who you constantly kill and who you call enemies, that you are at war with them! It is a Monty Python sketch waiting to be written...
Is it a life and death matter where the 9/11 scum are tried and convicted? No. It's stupid not to try them in a military court, given that we are at war, and they are non-uniformed combatants. But we all know that even if they are all found innocent, not a one of them will ever be released. They will all, at the very least, end their days in an American prison, because they are guilty, and we already know that. They have told us repeatedly.
So we know the end, what we don't know is the middle. Will any court in New York be able to provide anything like a realistic stab at a valid trial? Probably not. So there will likely be a completely unnecessary black mark against American justice, and excellent propaganda for Al Qaeda and the wahhabist hoi polloi. And if after all the lawyerly banging on about torture most of the prosecution evidence is ruled inadmissable, there is at least some chance that the five will HAVE to be found innocent. And at that point large numbers of things will melt and shit will hit many fans. All over the world, America-haters will dance in the streets. And then when the men are not released from custody, the America-haters will go apopletic and rage about American injustice and perfidy. It will be a perfect shit-storm.
And it was all completely avoidable, or would have been for anyone with a modest IQ. A military tribunal is not only the right place for the men to be tried from a historical and legal point of view, it would have avoided any possibility of the men being extricated by a lawyer with a brain and no morals. After they were convicted, they could have disappeared forever, and become shark-bait somewhere in the northern Caribbean.
'...What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.'