Lawyers may ultimately prove a better weapon for Islamist terrorists than even the media. This week's mistrial misery in the Muslim Holy Land charity case is the latest example of the legal system biting the administration where it hurts. Yes, the government will retry, and likely lose again. Why so? Because the kind of jurors who have time to sit several months in a courtroom are too ignorant to know Hezbollah from Hadassah, and with O.J. jury IQs and judgment are easily bamboozled by defense lawyers and witnesses in complex financial fraud cases. "We didn't know the Palestinian folks we sent the dough to were baddies," etc. Each loss fortifies radicals within American Muslim communities, about how the government picks on them, etc. Better to let them stay free, but track their communications and funding to identify the real Mr. Big terrorist leaders and groups. Overall, since 9/11, a New York Times front-pager reports that the government's criminal conviction record is 29 percent in terror prosecutions, versus 92 percent in regular criminal cases. Part of this chasm can be attributed to the administration bringing every possible terror case, even if marginal; an intersecting factor is that juries are demanding strict proof, even in terror cases.
On another front, the LA Times reports that the FBI is working to "bolster" the cases against the 14 senior al-Qaeda commanders, fearing that much evidence against them may not be admissible, especially if military tribunals are invalidated and the cases go to the criminal justice system. Even a single acquittal in a high-profile case--with lurid courtroom descriptions of interrogation methods used (to save lives, which will be lost to most of the global audience)--would be a monster political defeat for America.
Which underscores anew to the supreme folly of putting unlawful combatants on trial. We rarely have done so during actual wars--Nuremberg was after. We should have stood that ground here. The President could, I think, have swayed most voters by explaining those precedents. As for our "allies" hectoring us, we could have told them (quietly, but firmly) that if they want our help in the future they had better shut up now. "Lawfare" is defeating warfare, by tying war-fighting up in knots.
Comments