This exchange [Town hall via HotAir] with the WH Press Secretary leaves this very good question unanswered:
[Jack] TAPPER: OK. So the Obama administration is refusing to say that if someone is found not guilty, they will be set free?
GIBBS: Jake, I am not going to get into the hypotheticals about specific outcomes of cases.
TAPPER: I’m not asking you to talk about a specific case. I’m talking about in general.
GARRETT: For all the detainees brought to the system — into this system of justice, which this administration said can and has in the past handled adequately — more than adequately, according to your talking points this morning, the terrorism cases brought before it in whatever venue — if that justice system, which the administration says should be trusted, renders a verdict of not guilty, is that person released?
GIBBS: We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes.
TAPPER: Well, then how is the world supposed to have any confidence that this new system of justice that you guys are ensuring is going to be the case with detainees, is actually credible?
GIBBS: We think the Southern District of New York has a very good record, as it relates to trying and convicting terror suspects.
TAPPER: I believe what your — the facts sheet said this morning — was that it has a 90 percent success rate.
GIBBS: I think 90 is pretty good.
TAPPER: I’m not questioning whether 90’s pretty good. I’m asking you about the 10 percent.
GIBBS: And I’m, in this specific case, not going to get into those hypotheticals."
The decision to conduct a criminal trial in NYC is so obviously wrong, I must be missing something. Maybe this is, in fact, more about putting trial the Bush administration on trial. That was suggested last night on O'Reilly. If so, Obama will pay one hell of a political price.
UPDATE: The Bush Administration As The RealTarget Of This Trial.
UPDATE: Senate Democrats have been hung out to dry:
"The political consequences will also extend to 54 Senate Democrats who voted recently against legislation to bar such civil trials--and to Democrats in the House who will be put on the spot as well. Congress could insist on military tribunals, and indeed in the past it has provided for such tribunals. I imagine Republicans on the Hill will try to move to overrule Holder, with legislation in the Senate, and with legislation and perhaps a discharge petition in the House. Holder can take his lumps for his reckless ideological decision if he wishes. Will congressional Democrats follow him off the cliff?"