The normally nuanced Michael Goodwin goes nuts on Eric Holder in today's New York Post:
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to ship Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Manhattan for federal trials is beyond bad judgment.
It is a radical call that puts his leftist legal theories over public safety and common sense. The war on terror is being relabeled as a crime problem, in the very shadow of Ground Zero.
But Mr. Holder feels pretty good about it, and is sure that "people" will understand and support his decision:
But I think if people will, in a neutral and detached way, look at the decision that I have made today, understand the reasons why I made those decisions, and try to do something that's rare in Washington--leave the politics out of it and focus on what's in the best interest of this country--I think the criticism will be relatively muted.
What type of people, Mr. Holder, do you expect to "understand" and "mute their criticism" of this bizarre and outlandish decision? Folks like firemen, police officers, blue-collar folks and office workers who need to travel past the 12th floor to get to their cubical? Or people most resembling the hard left-wing types that you associate with at work and mingle with socially after-hours?
Rachel Abrams, blogging at the Weekly Standard:
...The dispassion, the self-reverence, the blindness of the man, are marvelous to behold, and so perfectly reflect the president he so perfectly serves. “Neutral and detached” people shall “understand the reasons why” he made those decisions, shall see he has left “the politics out of it,” and shall recognize what’s right--something the rest of us, benighted and bellicose souls that we are, have never managed to do with respect to the disposition of those committing mass murders of Americans in their ongoing war against our civilization.
The worst-case outcome is frightening. The beasts who helped kill nearly 3,000 Americans could walk free, while the brave agents who protected the country get locked up.
And contrary to press reports, Holder didn't commit to seeking the death penalty, saying only he expects to. He also didn't say what the charges would be.
Do you trust him? Neither do I.
And nor should you, gentle reader. Goodwin's "worst-case scenario" is actually Holder's, Obama's, and the Left's best-case scenario. Our national leadership associates with the folks who rose up in anger on 9/11 not against the terrorists who murdered 3,000 innocents that day, but against America, in belief that our policies and national character brought on this attack. Who railed in anger in the ensuing years not against Islamists who threatened our national security and killed our troops overseas, but against America, again, for daring to fight back, for daring to squeeze information from those with deadly intent, and for doing it all without shame or personal reproach.
In their eyes (more sophisticated than ours),Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a victim, of American overreach and abuse, and it is the enablers of that "overreach" - CIA interrogation agents, Dick Cheney and George W, Bush - that should be the ones on trial. KSM should be speaking at Harvard, giving diversity lectures and symposiums, and it is our agents and public officials who protected us after 9/11 should be breaking rocks in the hoosegow for the next 20 years....
Will the hard-left get its vengeance fantasies fulfilled by the liberal bordello once know as the Justice Department? Well, that will be up to a New York jury, I guess.
And while those 12 men and women may believe they are holding the fate of only one sick man in their hands, it is actually an entire nation that surely hangs in the balance...