Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court in New York will be "truly the trial of the century."
It's unbelievable that the attorney general would use that phrase in the course of justifying his decision.
As Wikipedia helpfully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_century#column-one target=_blank>explains:
Trial of the century is an idiomatic phrase used to describe certain well-known court cases, especially of the twentieth century....The Washington Post observed in 1999 on the eve of the closing century: "Calling court cases "the trial of the century" is a traditional bit of American hyperbole, like calling a circus "The Greatest Show on Earth." Nearly every juicy tabloid trial in our history was called the "trial of the century" by somebody. "Every time I turn around, there's a new trial of the century," says defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. "It's a kind of hype," he says. "It's a way of saying, 'This is really fabulous. It's really sensational.' But it doesn't really mean anything.""
Leave aside all the practical problems with trying KSM and his henchmen in a civilian court. Doesn't Eric Holder realize he's inviting a circus-like "juicy tabloid trial" for men who have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands? Does he really think such a trial will contribute to "fairness and justice," as he claims? Does he think military tribunals aren't fair and just? And did it never occur to him to ask whether giving the terrorists the chance to create a tabloid spectacle is an appropriate way to honor our dead and those who continue to fight the jihadists?
I'm very doubtful a "trial of the century" will serve the cause of fairness and justice. I'm certain it won't help the cause of victory.
