Trial in New York is triumph for al-Qaida

Five jihadi warriors, including the mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, will return to New York to face the consequence of their crime in a court of law.

Editorial writers in the Obama press over the weekend waxed eloquent about the triumph of American justice. The long night of torture, rendition and endless incarceration under the evil Bush is at last over and due process is restored even for our attackers, to show the world how fair and civilized America has once again become under President Obama – or, as the Chinese call him, Oba-mao.

A while back in law school, I was taught that a criminal trial was a search for truth during which the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime(s) the government charged.

In December 2008, before a military court at Gitmo, these same defendants admitted committing the crimes charged, and, rather than expressing remorse for the deaths of 3,000 people that resulted, bragged about the attacks of Sept. 11 and proclaimed that they wore the government's charges like a "badge of honor."

Congress authorized the military court in 2006 in response to criticism of long incarcerations of Gitmo detainees by Bush. Nonetheless, in January 2009, newly sworn-in President Obama acted swiftly to suspend the military trial at Gitmo before that court could pronounce sentence on the admittedly guilty jihadis.

TRENDING: All the bad news to which my friend is oblivious

Democrats in Congress had seen to it in 2006 that the law authorizing the military courts protected the defendant's rights to the lawyer of their choice, to call witnesses in their defense, to have the right of appeal – to observe all the due process demanded for these jihadis by the American Left. The jihadis ignored all of it and bragged about their role in attacking America, asserting in writing that their actions were the will of Allah.

Why would the president risk humiliation for America if this "show trial" results in acquittal, or even in endless defense motions and appeals which drag out for years and demonstrate not the strength of our justice system but its weakness?

You can well imagine the defense attorney's targets here. For example: Was my client given the "Miranda" warning when he was captured during battle, advising him of his legal rights? No? Well then, all the government "evidence" gathered since then, including his confession(s), is inadmissible in this trial. You waterboarded my client how many times? All "evidence" against my client is tainted by this torture and therefore inadmissible. You want the trial where? How can he get a fair trial in the city he's falsely accused of attacking? We need at least six months to find a venue where the jury pool is not tainted by knowledge of the alleged "incident" of Sept. 11.

Speaking of the jury, can you imagine the selection process to find American "peers" of jihadi warriors from the Middle East? Will Maj. Hasan be available now that John Allen Muhammad has gone to his eternal rest in the arms of 72 virgins? Anyone seen Johnny Walker Lindh lately?

Andrew McCarthy, as a New York federal prosecutor in the '90s, led the prosecution of the "Blind Sheik" in the case of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. On my radio program last week, Mr. McCarthy used the phrase "show trial" to describe the Obama/Holder plan for the Gitmo detainees. He pointed out that the defendants had ample due process in the military trial at Gitmo, were clearly guilty and interested in using further proceedings only as a propaganda platform for jihad.

But McCarthy's startling analysis went deeper to answer the question of why would Obama order this "show trial."

He pointed out that defense attorneys would also press for revelations of methods and practices of the CIA and the U.S. military and would seek detail on the rendition of detainees to third countries (for "torture" that the evil and cowardly Bush would not do directly).

In other words, the civilian trial would reveal to the jihadi enemy all the secrets of the U.S. in fighting this war. Or, if the court denied revealing these secrets, this denial would form the basis for acquittal of the defendants and "proof" that the attacks of 9/11 were a Bush lie all along.

With both Attorney General Holder and President Obama promising convictions in the case, it looks like the Bush plans that kept America safe from attack between Sept. 11, 2001, and this month's massacre at Fort Hood will become public knowledge.

But even more importantly to accomplish the fervent goal of the international Left, the trial would thus force into the open the factual bases for indicting Bush and Cheney for crimes against humanity and bringing them to trial before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

This analysis becomes frighteningly real when you consider the case of 23 CIA employees indicted by Italy (in a case involving the rendition of a jihadi from Italy to Egypt) and recently found guilty in an Italian court. Will the Italians demand extradition? Will Interpol hunt these Americans down?

The "show trial" sold to the public as long delayed justice for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks is just the opposite. This trial will begin the criminalizing of everyone connected with the "War on Terror" during the Bush years.

It will be for al-Qaida a triumph of propaganda, a bonanza of intel, and a mighty blow against the evil Bush and his resistance to Islam conquering the world.

As with all appeasements, Obama's craven "show trial" and its proclaimed "fairness" will not stop the attacks on our country but rather encourage new attacks as the enemy perceives a fatal deterioration in the American will to resist.