WHAT A DIFFERENCE 35 YEARS MADE IN AMERICA – PART 2
November 25, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Decision to try 9/11 Muslim terrorists in U.S. Court was Obama’s, not Holders. Do you really think Obama would allow Holder to make this extremely high decision on this own? It was Obama’s decision and the Attorney General was only his dummy who would take most of the flack!
Please forgive my lack of pol iti
cal correctness, but this action is definitely not pro-Israel, it is distinctly pro-Islamic.
On the campaign trail and in the first month of his office, I lost count of the times he swore his love, respect, and support for Israel. But from April to the present, he has become more pro-Islamic than pro-Israeli in the actions he took against Israel, as well as blaming America for failing to dialog with Islam, and for not understanding the gre at
historical contributions of Islam to human diversity. His motivation for doing it all was to gain the respect of Islam leaders.
The stance on our foreign policy toward Israel in the 35 years
since 1974, when U.S. President Richard M. Nixon resigned, held reasonably steady in its pro-Israel stance until Obama began this year. During his short time in office he has left a trail of appeasement to the Islamic religion and nations, which left America looking like a nation without a backbone and a willingness to fight for our liberty and true friends.
The trial of the 9/11 Islamic perpetrators is another pro Islamic Obama attempt to satisfy the far left wing of his Democratic party, some of which believe America was responsible for the attack on the twin towers and Pentagon. The perpetrator’s testimony will be used to convince more of the American public it was the fault of the United States.
They are chomping at the bit to propagate this idea in court. It will strengthen the resolve of brother terrorists in the Islamic faith, and cement their position as heroes in the worldwide hearts of the Islamic world. In the Islamic faith the ‘great way’ is to die for Allah and Islam.
Begin Excerpt from THE JERUSALEM POST
Travesty in New York
November 22, 2009
Charles Krauthammer , THE JERUSALEM POST
For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the “propaganda of the deed.” And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 – not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.
And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life – and KSM, a second act: “9/11, The Director’s Cut,” narration by KSM.
September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable – a civilian trial in the media capital of the world
– from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.
So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.
Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder.
Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure – acquittal, hung jury – is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.
Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in US custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.
Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York – what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? – it will endanger US security.
CIVILIAN COURTS with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.
That’s precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of
the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. “Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,” wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”
Finally, there’ s the moral logic.
It’s not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a milit
ary tribunal.
By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain.
In his November 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.
What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime – an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which
the US itself has engaged in countless times?
By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?
Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform – everything but your own blog.
Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It’s Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.
Indeed, the perfect justice.
Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.
Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be “the trial of the century.” The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.
The Washington Post
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.