By Bryan Fischer
Eric Holder wants us to believe that he supports a civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed because he’s so gung-ho for the death penalty.
He argues that a man who pleads guilty – as KSM has done – has a better chance of receiving a death sentence in civilian court than he would in a military tribunal. Therefore, says the hapless AG, we need to try him in civilian court to give us the best chance to fry him.
This is nauseating pandering and shameless hypocrisy.
The truth is that during his confirmation hearing to become assistant attorney general under then AG Janet Reno, Holder said, “I am not a proponent of the death penalty.”
This surely represents his true conviction on the matter.
In fact, in one particular case, he initially refused to seek the death penalty for someone accused of murdering a District of Columbia police officer.
But logically, if Holder opposes the death penalty as a matter of principle, this would mean that Holder would be actively working to get KSM in front of a military tribunal, would it not?
Plus, I think you can make a good case that, with regard to the death penalty, Holder is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
Comparing the rules for military tribunals to the rules for civilian courts, we find that in a civilian court, for instance, the jury consists of twelve citizens chosen completely at random.
In a military tribunal, on the other hand, the tribunal for death penalty cases consists of seven members of the military, not blindly selected at random but chosen and appointed by the brass.
The rules of evidence are also radically different. In a civilian court, strict rules of evidence apply, including custody chain of evidence. This inherently makes death penalty verdicts extremely difficult to get in terrorist situations, where the effort is to kill bad guys rather than gather evidence.
In a military tribunal, on the other hand, evidence can be admitted if it “would have probative value to a reasonable person.” Thus relevant testimony and evidence is much easier to get on the record in a military tribunal than in civilian court.
A conviction requires a unanimous verdict in a civilian court, but just a two-thirds majority in a military tribunal.
And while a death penalty requires a unanimous verdict in either case, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize that it’s easier to get one of those with seven people rather than 12.
A brief look at actual history confirms this. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the Department of Justice sought the death penalty in 431 cases over the 19 years between 1988 and 2007. The DOJ was successful in getting capital convictions in just 59 cases, a batting average of .136.
In military tribunals, in stark contrast, the death penalty has been sought in 49 cases and awarded in 15, a batting average of .306. These are Hall of Fame numbers in comparison to civilian courts.
In other words, I think any reasonable person would conclude that the chances are much higher that KSM will walk if he’s tried in civilian court, and much more likely to fry if tried in a military court.
Holder knows this, which is why he wants KSM in a civilian courtroom. He hates the military, shares his president’s distaste for the racist United States, and would love to demonstrate the “fairness” of our vaunted legal system by allowing the mastermind of 3,000 murders to walk free.
That’s the best way to stick it to the U.S., to use our own legal system against us. I have no doubt that a thrill would run up Holder’s leg the moment KSM was set free, in part no doubt because most of his victims were white folk.
Perhaps KSM will be able to hook up with Roman Polanski at his Swiss chalet upon his release, and they both can enjoy a laugh at our expense.
So Holder is just blowing smoke when he says he wants a civilian trial for KSM because he’s looking for the best chance of putting him out of our misery permanently. While the out-of-the-mainstream media may fall for his bilge, I certainly don’t, and no thinking American should either.
The Moral Liberal contributing editor, Bryan Fischer, is Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, and is the host of the daily ‘Focal Point’ radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association. ‘Focal Point’ airs live from 1-3 pm Central Time, and is also simulcast on the AFA Channel, which can be seen on the Sky Angel network.
