Eric Holder is no dummy. He understands the legal system and, as U.S. Attorney General, he has access (presumably) to the best legal minds in our country. What I find curious is that I have not heard many legal arguments in favor of such a civilian trial. It's almost as if the legal benefits were not part of the consideration. Instead, what if we look at the consequences of such a trial, those "unintended" consequences?
What happens to the commander in the field of battle? Is that commander now forced to consider reading an enemy combatant a Miranda-rights statement? Isn't that a requirement of our legal justice system, such that it's absence renders all verbal evidence gained from the "accused" to be inadmissible in a court of law? What happens when an interpreter must be found to insure that the enemy combatant understands those Miranda rights? What happens when the enemy combatant realizes that silence is an option? What happens if the commander in the field uses coercive techniques anyway, knowing that those under his command may be in imminent danger without valuable intelligence that the enemy combatant may have? Will that commander be prosecuted for doing so?
I do not believe for a second that those questions were NOT given consideration as Eric Holder debated whether or not to proceed with civilian trials. I think they were considered a plus. How else would you completely hamstring our military and neuter its effectiveness? After all, isn't a strong military expected to uphold and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic? Sounds to me like the military's capabilities are anathema to the Obama administration's agenda.
No, I believe that those "unintended" consequences are INTENDED consequences. This administration has shown its disdain for the military in more ways than one. This is just another example of Obama's treachery in trying to subvert everything that this nation stands for. It is a way to further weaken something that may stand in his way to creating his version of a socialist utopia with him as its leader.
Update. It now appears that Obama himself is doing his part to "taint" the criminal trial. Per Jonah Goldberg:
Every day it appears more and more that the White House wants it both ways. They want to claim that this is a fair trial but also an act of vengeance. The terrorists will be treated as if they might be innocent — key to a fair trial — but at the end of the day they’ll get their comeuppance. If KSM & Co. get off on a technicality, don’t worry, they’ll still be locked up, but when they’re convicted the White House will claim it was always a fair process. They’ll get a fair trial from an impartial jury in New York, but it’s “fitting” and “poetic justice” that the jury will be drawn from the community that was viciously attacked on 9/11. Fair but vengeful, honest but foreordained, instructive to the world but really just about the law: the rhetoric from the White House and the Democrats isn’t persuasive to those who listen closely and certainly won’t be persuasive to foreigners Obama is determined to impress.Obama's 2-cents worth is here. More double-speak if you ask me.