But the White House ultimately deferred to Holder's rule-of-law legal analysis to try K.S.M in a federal criminal court. The Times quotes WH advisor Valerie Jarrett: "The attorney general briefed the White House team on his analysis and the decision was made to defer to him, because ultimately it was his decision." (Interestingly, the Times piece chips away at Holder's assertion, made at his November 13 news conference, that he had not engaged in discussions with the White House over the K.S.M. venue decision.)
The Times describes those White House discussions, telling how Holder, walked through how the case would play inside the courtroom compared to a military tribunal: "He told colleagues that the civilian option was more likely to deliver swift, sure justice. Unlike the civilian prosecutors, the military team built its case around detainee confessions that are likely to raise challenges over whether they were tainted by torture. The commission system’s prosecutors and judges were less experienced; its rules are a work in progress, with no clear answer to questions like whether defendants may plead guilty to capital offenses; and its legality is untested, so the Supreme Court might overturn any guilty verdict."
Respect by White House officials for Holder and his principled "do the right thing" persona played a big role, according to the Times. But the White House put the clamp on Holder's ability to explain those merits to the American public following his November 13 announcement, creating a political vacuum that continues to give political critics -- including former Vice-President Dick Cheney -- the opportunity to denounce the civilian trial plan as soft-on-terror.
No comments:
Post a Comment