Having taken the time to talk through the entire Khalid Sheikh Mohammed affair with people on both side of the aisle, I’ve finally drawn some conclusions. I don’t think the real problem here is whether President Obama – through the office of Eric Holder – made the right or wrong call on this. The sticking point is that he made both calls by deciding to send one group to civilian trials and another to military tribunals. Our official legislative process for dealing with these so called “enemy combatants” remains woefully murky, and the president needs to be the one setting the tone and direction for how we will process them.
This is the subject of my column this week at Pajamas Media, New Yorkers Face the Prospect of a Terrorism Trial in their Back Yard. I also include a round-up of reactions from New Yorkers, both famous and obscure. A short bit to get you started.
America’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani – frequently mentioned as a possible seeker of Paterson’s job — came out with some of the harshest criticism of Holder’s announcement. But as George Stephanopoulos pointed out to him, Rudy seems to be as confused about how to handle these cases as President Obama. Back when Zacarias Moussaoui was put on trial in similar fashion, Giuliani described the process as a “symbol of justice.”
Conversely, the president had a moment back in the day when he was perfectly happy to see KSM go before a military tribunal. Tribunals are good! Then, after taking office, he denounced the practice. Tribunals are bad! And now, Khalid and his cronies will have a civilian trial, but another group of bombers will take the military route. Tribunals are good … except when they’re bad!