At the time, Rudy Giuliani and other so-called “hard-liners” praised the
civilian trial of Moussaoui as a triumph of the American system of justice.
Which it was. And what was the right policy for President Bush is now the right
policy for President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaThe moral origins of Donald Trump’s rise to power Part One Rubio primary challenger loans campaign M Dear Cory Booker: How's that 'Camden Rising' thing working out? MORE.
Meanwhile, the opposition arguments put forth by New York Democrats were laughable. The trial will cause traffic jams? New York City’s a perpetual traffic jam. It’ll force nearby businesses to close? Didn’t happen in Boston or Alexandria. It’ll require tough security? I thought the NYPD was the best in the world. It’ll cost $200 million? The federal government would pick up the tab.
But, of course, those aren’t the real reasons Democrats caved in. They’re simply chicken. They’re so afraid of being called soft on terrorism, they’ll run for the hills rather than stand and fight for what’s right. Shame on them.
For, in the end, what’s really at stake in this decision is not the location of one trial, it’s the American justice system itself. We either trust it or we don’t. We either believe in it, or not. If we do, we should not be so willing to throw it out the window whenever a terrorist suspect comes up for trial.
The controversy over where to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed has
turned into one of those good news/bad news stories. The good news is: The war
on terror is over. The bad news is: The terrorists won.
Visit Mr. Press's website at billpressshow.com.