IN WHAT'S quickly become an Obama administration tradition, Friday brought yet another stunning announcement: Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that the government would try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and three other 9/11 terrorists in civilian court in New York. The decision was born of misjudgment--and cunning.
Mohammed is the self-admitted mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 and is being held at Guantanamo Bay. Now, thanks to Mr. Holder, he'll be armored by the same constitutional rights that Americans have. He'll face a civilian judge in a civilian court under civilian rules of law--rules that in general give the defense the upper hand and undoubtedly will force the prosecution to reveal intelligence secrets.
What happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Most Americans would say the terror attacks were acts of war--albeit an unconventional war waged on the basis of ideology by non-uniformed combatants targeting civilian targets. The Bush administration, in a move approved by a bipartisan Congress, established military commissions to try captured "enemy combatants." There's precedent for this: During World War II, eight Germans entered the United States intent on causing fear and mass confusion. They were caught and tried in a military tribunal, and six of the eight were put to death.
The Obama administration, by classifying Mohammed and his cohorts as criminals rather than enemy combatants, is refusing to recognize the coordinated, ideologically driven war declared on the United States by Islamists. Failure to "know your enemy" is the surest way to defeat.
The 1993 trial of the "blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel-Rahman, in the first bombing of the World Trade Center gave Osama bin Laden an outline of what the U.S. knew about al-Qaida at the time, prompting him to leave Sudan for Afghanistan. Abdel-Rahman was a resident of the U.S. and al-Qaida was not yet a household name, so trying him in civilian court made sense. But al-Qaida's intent has become more clear and more deadly, and responding to its attacks as unconventional warfare is clearly appropriate and wise.
So why would Mr. Holder make the decision to try Mohammed as a civilian in New York? The answer is, cunning. It will take a couple of years to bring the case to trial, which should be perfect timing: The trial can be used to rouse resentment against the Bush administration and its more onerous interrogation policies all over again, just as Mr. Obama begins his re-election campaign.
Defending this nation against the very real threat of terror should be above politics. Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat, repudiated the Holder decision on the same day it was issued, saying, "Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts."
Many Americans have been uncomfortable with the idea of holding these enemy combatants in the Guantanamo Bay prison indefinitely without charges or trial. That's understandable: Justice should be both swift and fair. A military tribunal could have been both. Now it will be a political circus and a rich opportunity for terrorists.