The subject of my column this morning is the bogus number — 195 convictions — being thrown around by lefty lawyers and the DOJ to support their wayward argument that trials in the civilian criminal justice system make for an effective counterterrorism strategy. This, obviously, is the push-back against the temporary victory of common sense, the Obama administration’s reversal of its decision to try KSM & Co. in federal court in Manhattan.

As I demonstrate in the column, the claim that there have been 195 convictions of “international terrorists” since 9/11 is false. It comes from the dishonest use being made of an 2009 update of a report published by Human Rights First in 2008, called “In Pursuit of Justice.”

My column links the report and explains that it came up with the 195 number by aggregating cases that involved a lot more than terrorism charges (e.g., false-statements cases, immigration fraud, etc.) if those cases were somehow related to terrorism investigations.

There is something I didn’t address in the column but I think I should make clear. The Human Rights First report itself is not the problem. For many years, I’ve known the authors of the report — Rich Zabel and Jim Benjamin. I think very highly of them, so much so that I cooperated in the original 2008 report, sitting for interviews at great length. I disagree philosophically with Rich and Jim regarding what we ought to conclude from the facts about civilian terrorism prosecutions. But I admire what they did in the report because they made a determined, good-faith effort to report honestly what the facts actually are. You can’t have an intelligent debate until you know what the real facts are, and they tried to make sure we did.

The report itself is completely transparent in how it arrived at its number of 195 convictions since 2001. It does not attempt to mislead the reader — indeed, my explanation of why the 195 number is bogus comes from quoting the report itself.

I do not want to be misunderstood as criticizing the report. I don’t agree with the report’s bottom line that the civilian justice system is an effective tool against war criminals. But my quarrel is not with the data as laid out in the report. I object, instead, to the dishonest way the report is being used. The report is very clear that it is not labeling the 195 convicts as “international terrorists.” Thus, the misuse of the report to make that suggestion is all the more disingenuous.