Dana Milbank on Khattalah-- huh?

Although Dana Milbank was a regular on Olbermann's show he's not the worst partisan hack in the mainstream media fish pond.  He'll occasionally see a light and call a spade a spade. But his column today on Abu Khattalah is head-scratching. First, the headline:

Benghazi suspect Abu Khattala’s hearing shows merits of civilian courts

OK, so somehow bringing the terrorist to court has merit.  But searching the piece turns up little in the way of any merits.  Milbank rambles on about some courtroom audio problems then drops what apparently was supposed to be a merit:

The accused could see that he was represented by a legal team — Peterson and her assistant, also a woman — that vigorously challenged the government’s case. He could hear the judge making sure he understood his rights, and prosecutors assuring the judge they would share the evidence against Abu Khattala with the defense.

As important, the world could see (or learn from those in the courtroom, broadcasting via five satellite trucks parked outside the courthouse) that the prisoner was treated with dignity: He sat unshackled, and, through his lawyer, he entered a request for a halal diet and an Arabic-language Koran.

Do you see the mistake?  Yes, none of this means diddly squat.  Terrorists do not care about civil society.  It really doesn't matter to them if we try them via a criminal court or a military tribunal or blow them away with a drone or a tank--it's all for Allah anyway.  And quite obviously we and they both know a jury is never going to find them innocent and let them walk out the front door leaving them, as Bill Ayers once said, 'free as a bird'.

When Ramzi Yousef was caught in a rendition in Pakistan in 1995 and charged for the first World Trade Center attack and Operation Bojinka he wasn't harshly interrogated by the FBI on the way home.  It's questionable as to just how much he was interrogated at all before going to jail.  Think about that--he's the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.  Bojinka was a plot to bomb 11 airliners.  We had him in our grasp but somehow didn't find out anything of substance about al Qaeda or any of the other Islamist cells and where they were planning the next mass murder attack.  Later the Khobar Towers and USS Cole attacks occurred, leading to 9/11.  But the terrorist was tried in federal court! 

The Clinton folks treated him like John Dillinger.  Eric Holder came in the Justice Department during Yousef's trials and he seems to have learned nothing in 20 years, nor has Milbank.  They evidently don't understand the enemy or are suffering from delusions.

During the trial Yousef tried to make a mockery of our criminal justice system, acting as his own attorney and doing the occasional outburst.  When he was found guilty this is what he said:

The Government in its summations and opening statement said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites.

Megyn Kelly should have asked Bill Ayers whether he agreed with that statement or not.  Fast forward to now, Barack Obama will not hesitate to drone people in remote areas with no media coverage but at the same time seems to believe we are sending someone a powerful message by trying Abu Khattala or Anas al-Libi or even KSM in federal court.

Surely they know that people who think and operate like AQ jihadists are the strong horses of the world--the barbarians--and nothing affects them.  So this is being done for who--the rest of the world?  Milbank seems to think Abu Khattalah should be impressed.  But in reality the target audience only sees the death and destruction while those under the terrorist thumb are too busy trying to keep their necks intact to be impressed by audio troubles in a New York courtroom.

ISIS is showing the world an example of that concept now.  Would John Kerry ever call for a meeting of all parties in the ISIS conflict so everyone could sit down with folded napkins and crystal glassware to discuss 'the way forward' over a 'range of issues'?  Not a chance.  He'd be too scared of getting shot or having his head end up in the fruit bowl.

Groups like ISIS or AQ must be eradicated, period.  A hashtag won't stop them from kidnapping girls.  Thinking it will, or that a criminal court proceeding will change hearts and minds is dangerous--especially for those in positions of leadership.  "Know thine enemy" is an old saying.  Milbank and those who think this way should brush up on the history of this war.  Those that have and even those who've only partially paid attention know instinctively that keeping the ones we don't kill on a remote corner of Castro's island is probably for the best, since we'd be holding them here for life in a Supermax anyway.