Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Caring more for world opinion than national security

What is so puzzling about Holder's decision on KSM is that he seems more interested in world opinion than over the dangers that he is needlessly risking by trying KSM in civilian courts. As Thomas Sowell points out,
Nor was there mention of how many foreign nations and individuals whose cooperation with us in the war on terror have been involved in countering Al Qaeda-- nor how many foreign nations and individuals will have to think twice now, before cooperating with us again, when their role can be revealed in court to our enemies, who can exact revenge on them.

Behind this decision and others is the notion that we have to demonstrate our good faith to other nations, sometimes called "world opinion." Just who are these saintly nations whose favor we must curry, at the risk of American lives and the national security of the United States?

Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations. Yet this is the gallery to which Barack Obama has been playing, both before and after becoming President of the United States.
Just think. IF KSM chooses to represent himself, he will be able to request access to all sorts of intelligence that was used to capture him.. Through him and his trial, that intelligence will become available to our enemies. Even if that intelligence is today of little use, they can learn about our methods and who has been aiding us. What kind of crimp will that put in future intelligence-gathering? And why is the supposed benevolence of world opinion worth this?