For more than 200 years we have enjoyed the presumption of innocence, double jeopardy protections, miranda rights, and American civil liberties.  It’s what separates us from foreign non-uniformed enemy combatants who violate the rules of war.  We are entitled to a trial with a jury of our peers.  We are entitled to protection against self incrimination.  There are laws and procedures that must be followed, warrants must be procured, and so on in order for the most obvious and damning evidence to be allowable.  Criminals go free sometimes, but because of that we have a legal system designed to protect the innocent above all.

In a move that can only be described as rash and perhaps emotionally driven, President Barack Obama decided to move Khalid Sheikh Mohamed’s trial to New York City and to make it a civilian trial.  In that one move, Obama granted constitutional rights to one of the most terrible terrorist masterminds of our time.  The only reason Khalid Sheikh Mohamed does not share the same infamy as Osama Bin Laden is that Bush caught Mohamed, but not Bin Laden.  In most cases, including 9/11, they stand accused of the same crimes.

What President Obama may or may not have realized is that the rights that we enjoy as American citizens under our constitution have been put all in for a game of chance played by twelve jurors and a judge.  Can a judge, under our constitution, allow evidence collected contrary to our laws?  Can a judge allow a non-mirandized, tortured convict to stand trial?  Can twelve impartial jurors be found in New York City where Mohamed murdered nearly three thousand Americans?

The answer is that Obama already knows the score.  In different statements made by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, KSM has already been declared guilty and given the death penalty.  Both have announced that he will be found guilty and executed, or he will be returned to a military prison and given a military trial.  For the first time, the presumption of innocence that Americans have enjoyed under our constitution has been made null and void by a sitting President who is charged with protecting and implementing our constitution.

You might be asking yourself, if the trial against KSM fails and he is sent back to a military prison to face a military trial, why didn’t we just do that in the first place?  Here is where my worse suspicions may be confirmed.

Rahm Emanuel once said that we shouldn’t waste a crisis.  It is an opportunity to fundamentally change our system, to do things we normally wouldn’t and destroy laws and traditions we have held dear for years.  Apparently the feeling in Washington is that we shouldn’t waste a tragedy either.  By putting this trial in a civilian court, we have the perfect bad guy that every American hates.  No American would cry if Khalid Sheikh Mohamed was denied certain rights such as the presumption of innocence.  No American in New York City is going to organize a “Free KSM” rally at the court house because he wasn’t read his rights or the evidence was collected as if it was some sort of military operation, not civilian police raid.

By making KSM public enemy number one and then giving him a constitutional civilian trial, Obama has created the perfect precedent to supersede the precedent of all of the constitutional rights previously mentioned.

We can only pray that this was nothing more than a bumbling act of complete incompetence.  But I would expect more from the former head of Harvard Law Review and constitutional scholar.

Source: American Thinker

American people smarter than Holder or Obama

Rick Moran
A strong majority of Americans believe that Obama is wrong to try KSM in a civilian court. That’s the result of  a new Gallup poll:

By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court. Most Republicans and independents favor holding the trial in a military court, while the slight majority of Democrats disagree.

These findings come from a Nov. 20-22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Mohammed’s case would move from a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, where the admitted terrorist was originally charged, to a federal court in New York City. “Despite their sharp differences over how to bring Mohammed to justice, Republicans and Democrats largely agree that, if found guilty, he should pay the ultimate price.”

Public opinion is a bit less contrary to Holder’s decision regarding the venue for the trial. Although the majority of Americans (51%) say Mohammed should face trial somewhere other than New York City, 42% — slightly higher than the percentage favoring a civilian trial — support holding the trial in the city where the vast majority of Americans lost their lives on Sept. 11.

You have to admit there is a nice sense of justice to the idea of holding a trial in New York. But the problems far outweigh any “feel good” emotions such a trial would elicit. You can’t give in to the idea of “justice coming full circle” just to satisfy our feelings of pay back – not when security and the  integrity of the court system itself is at  stake. The mockery KSM and the other plotters will try to make of this trial is far more of a problem than offending the sensibilities of liberals in Europe if we were to use a military tribunal to try the terrorists.

Much more interesting is that the people seem to have a lot more common sense than Holder and Obama when it comes to how to proceed to bring KSM to justice. Not that it will change their minds but even Democrats barely agree with them.

Once again, the American people prove themselves smarter than their government.

Americans at Odds With Recent Terror Trial Decisions

Majorities would prefer trying 9/11 kingpin in a military court, away from New York

Is it just me, or does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look just like one of the marionettes from “Team America: World Police?” I digress…

I really don’t have anything to add to the KSM/9-11 trial that folks like Rudy Giuliani, Pete King, and Andy McCarthy have express more articulately and with more effective anger than I ever could. Besides, I’m sure the last thing the internet needs is another conservative blogger criticizing the President. At least, not when it’s so much funner to point out liberals who have been criticizing him as of late.

First is Richard Cohen, who I’m a huge fan of because a) I like hearing from people who disagree with me, and b) Cohen is an actual liberal as opposed just another Obama apologist. Here’s what Mr. Cohen has to say recently aboot the assorted foreign-policy related…it’s Thanksgiving, so I’ll be generous and call them “oopsies….”

But to reread the speech is also to come face to face with an Obama of keen moral clarity. Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified. He could talk to America as a black man and a white man — having lived in both worlds. He could — and he did — explain to America what it is like to have been a black man of Wright’s age and what it is like even now to be a black man of any age.

Somehow, though, that moral clarity has dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conferences and events — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be thinking, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Sept. 11 defendants in criminal court, as if this were a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. What is the principle in that: What works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.

Even the Obama Apologists at the serious news organization MSNBC have been critical (as opposed to the fake news on Fox). Here’s JBdotC 2008 Political Douchebag of the Year Chris Matthews, who sounds like \his leg isn’t tingling as much as it used to…

“I worry about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He’s going to find himself an ACLU lawyer . . . He’s going to use that as a platform from hell where he gets to spew his point of view on the Middle East – that kind of thing he’s going to sell with the beard and everything – The New York Post is going to be reborn with this guy as the enemy. I just worry that he’s going to win this argument for months before he gets executed, if he does get executed. If that ever happens, I worry about this becoming a show for the bad guys.”

You’re doing a heckuva job there, Barry!

My cousin Peter Regan had a piece published in the NY Post condemning the ridiculous decision to try terrorists in NYC.   His father, and my uncle, Donnie Regan died on 9/11 in the service of the FDNY.  Peter was in the Marines at the time, took leave to assist in the search for survivors, served two tours in Iraq, and, after finishing his service (and a call up in the IRR!) followed in Donnie’s footsteps as a NYC Fireman.

He wrote, among other things, “I will never be convinced that these terrorists did not commit an act of war. And committing an act of war does not qualify these men to enjoy the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country, rights that so many have died to protect.”

I am proud of Jill and Peter and other 9/11 family members that are standing up to this administration and reminding them that there are public relations and moral consequences for their actions not just in Europe and the Middle East, but here at home too.

…but Best Buy?

Check it:

“Okay, so Best Buy doesn’t advertise Christmas. So what? They don’t advertise Hanukkah either. Or Kwanzaa either. How else would they avoid offending people who don’t celebrate Christmas?”

Ah, good point, loyal blog readers. First, I must state that everyone I’ve ever met that DOESN’T celebrate Christmas is NOT offended when people tell them “Merry Christmas”. I celebrate Christmas; and when (and it happens) someone says “Happy Hanukkah!” to ME, I’m not offended. Why would I be? The only ones who would be offended by any Christ loving individuals are those who are hellbent on destroying the INFIDELS. Who is that? Oh, why the Muslim Islamic Extremists!

“So what does this have to do with Best Buy?”

Good question. Have a look at THIS:

“What the fuck is Eid-al-Adha?!” Well, I’ll tell ya.

Eid-al-Adha is “Festival of Sacrifice”; a holiday celebrated by Muslims. Eid al-Adha occurs the day after the pilgrims conducting Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia by Muslims worldwide, descend from Mount Arafat. It happens to be approximately 70 days after the end of the month of Ramadan. Best Buy won’t mention any OTHER “holiday” in order to avoid being offensive… Oh, except for the Muslim holiday. Now that a Muslim lives in the White House; I guess it’s okay. But wait! They didn’t advertise Christmas when we’ve had Christian presidents, did they? NEIN.

Okay. So now that you know what THAT bullshit is all about; have a look at our P Resident of the United States of America:

BHussein on Ramadan (another Muslim Holiday):

Watch as he wishes a blessed Ramadan to Muslims in and outside of the United States. He also mentions “swine flu” and how it’s a concern for those making the hajj pilgrimage this year.

It’s no secret that he was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim, and still stands strong in his Muslim beliefs. He bends over backwards trying to appease his Muslim brothers; even those who have carried out massive acts of terrorism. (See also KSM, GITMO prisoners, and the way he licks the asscrack of the Islamic terrorists who are attacking OUR BROTHERS and our ALLI, Israel.) Sure, he “says” he’s a Christian; but he’s not fooling anyone with a triple digit I.Q.

BHussein doesn’t celebrate Christmas. Well, he does when the media is looking. When he thinks America is looking, but if you read between the lines; it’s crystal clear.

Obama leaves the gifting to Santa
Article: Politico

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tells People magazine in the issue out Friday that he and his wife, Michelle, do not give Christmas or birthday presents to their two young daughters.

Obama tells the magazine’s Sandra Sobieraj Westfall in a seven-page cover story that he and his wife follow the unusual practice because they “want to teach some limits.”

Sure, BarryO. You want to teach your little punishment and your little mistake some “limits”. Nobody buys it. We know you don’t celebrate Christmas because you don’t believe in God. Jesus Christ. Funny thing is, Marxists and Muslims don’t celebrate birthdays or Christmas either. I suppose since you’re doing your best to make America a Socialist and Marxist nation; Best Buy figured they’d jump right on it.

Freudian slip, much?

There is much concern about the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused terrorists in a federal court in New York City.  Personally, I think that those concerns are unfounded, and I think that those concerns are raised in order to scare the public, for partisan political purposes.  Most of this noise comes, not from the populous at large, but from partisan politicians and media critics of the Obama Administration.

The fact of the matter is that our justice system has tried terrorists and have been quite successful in doing so.  I did, however, accept one concern in particular.  That is the concern that classified information could be provided to the defense, and subsequently, admitted at trial.  I was concerned about that until I did a little research, and I didn’t have to look far.  An important procedural tool for the prosecution (US Government) in trials for which classified information could be requested.  The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is used to protect classified information from being revealed in court, or to the defense. 

There are other pieces of legislation that is used to protect sensitive information, but CIPA has been used in recent terror trials, including that of Zacharias Moussaui, who was convicted in a federal court.  The trial of the so-called 20th hijacker was praised by some of the same people who are currently fear-mongering about the KSM trial.  And to my knowledge, no classified or, otherwise sensitive information, was released to the public or to the defense. 

Again, our courts have tried many terrorism suspects, and our prisons currently hold hundreds of terrorists, none of which have escaped.  That’s another point of contention being raised by the right–holding terrorists in our supermax prisons will increase the terror risk.  Unfortunately, these same detractors said nothing about these concerns during the Bush Administration.  And that is the difference, I think.  In their eagerness to damage President Obama, these critics have forgotten that our system of justice is far superior to the messages and tactics of terrorists.

Remember when it was understood that if our nation was forced to change our ways of life, then the same terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks will have won.  Seems to me that right-wing America has surrendered to cowards like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  I will never surrender my way of life, to no one, ever.  Luckily, our nation now has the leadership that understands that the strength of the United States of America is, in a large part, due to our system of justice.  It is time for these terrorists to receive the justice that they deserve, rather that sitting in a military prison without charge.  When justice is served, the world will know that we have not surrendered, and we will have won a small, but significant battle against terrorism.

Please consider supporting the families of 9/11 victims in opposing the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City.  You can support them here.  Below is letter outlining the latest developments, and their letter to President Obama which has been ignored.

November 21, 2009

Dear Supporter,

Last Wednesday, a group of 9/11 family members and New York first responders attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Attorney General Eric Holder testified about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 9/11 co-conspirators in a New York City federal court. Mr. Holder stumbled through several tough and pointed questions about the dangers of giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens and blurring the mission of our war fighters. He was visibly unnerved by the presence of the families and the first responders. We want to keep the pressure on him, as well as President Obama, who we were shocked to learn was AWOL on this reckless decision.

Nearly two weeks ago we sent a letter signed by 300 family members to President Obama, AG Holder and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. After Mr. Holder’s announcement last Friday, another 120,000 people (as of today) have signed the letter in support of our position. Many of these individuals are family members from all three attack sites, active & retired FDNY, PAPD & NYPD, first responders from throughout the country and active, reserve and retired members of the military.

We are holding a press conference on Tuesday, November 24, at noon in Battery Park, Clinton Castle for the 9/11 families and first responders/survivors. We chose to hold it on Thanksgiving Week in the hope that our fellow Americans will join us in sending our prayers and messages of thanks to our troops and first responders, who bear the brunt of the decisions made in Washington. At that time we will announce the details for a large rally in New York City on Saturday, December 5, at noon at a location to be announced at the press conference.

Going forward, we think it is important that the rally be tightly focused on the issues of keeping 9/11 war crimes trials out of civilian courts, keeping foreign terrorists off U.S. soil, and reversing the policy of returning to pre-9/11 days when the U.S. Government responded to deadly terrorist attacks with arrest warrants.

Please stay tuned as we release more information in the next few days.

Tim Brown
theBravest.com
neverforget@theBravest.com

Debra Burlingame* and Tim Sumner
9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America
info@911familiesforamerica.org

*Debra Burlingame is also a board member of Keep America Safe.

Ali Dayan Hassan, senior South Asia researcher for the US-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch is at work in the United Kingdom. He is also the British HRW South East Asia consultant to the the Lord Chilcot inquiry that will try to decide what was the overriding factor that took Britain into the Iraq war. This is a “crucial secret” the Chilcot inquiry could unlock. Key could be what assurances Tony Blair gave George Bush in a series of bilateral meetings, notably at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

The five man investigation committee that is holding a hearing that the leader says will last most of a year to investigate what actually was the reason for the Iraq war, and was Britain complicit in the torture of captured terrorist suspects.

The session will be televised on the BBC so it appears London will have a “circus” to watch on the “Tellee”about the same time that we have the travesty called a trial in New York for KSM and his four co-conspirators!

It appears the British have the same Human Rights “shill” as we have here in the USA.

What troubles me is the fact he may be called as a witness for the defense of the Terrorist Five” scheduled by Obama and his  Attorney General in New York.

The following is an article that Hasan wrote for Dawn, Pakistan’s only English newspaper.

“ISLAMABAD will be sealed off so that President Musharraf can welcome US President George Bush to his capital. Bush is making the journey to compliment and compensate Musharraf on services rendered in the ‘war on terror’.

Musharraf is hosting Bush to bask in the glory of a renewed alliance with the United States and to strengthen his faltering grip on power. Nowhere is human rights on the agenda.

In the run up to the trip, Bush has praised general Musharraf’s “vision for a democratic Pakistan” and his commitment to “free and open elections” Unless Bush knows something that Pakistanis do not, it appears that the continued disregard and undermining of the Pakistani Constitution, the marginalization of mainstream political parties, and the failure to hold a credible election is an odd formula for a democratic Pakistan and the Bush administration’s broader commitment to “fostering democracy in the Muslim world.”

The skewed view of President Musharraf held by Bush is certainly based on shared values. But rather than the shared value of democracy that Bush likes to speak about, what Musharraf and Bush have in common is a shared commitment to the priority, above all else, of the ‘war on terror.’ Bush has been gushing about Musharraf’s role therein, appreciating his “commitment to joining the world in dealing with Islamic radicals who will murder innocent people to achieve an objective.”

Bloggers note: this is the same Musharraf that identified the man scheduled to be tried with four other terrorists in New York as ” the man who had been recruited by the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, who had trained a 12-man suicide squad intended to hit US interests around the world, and conducted reconnaissance of Heathrow airport in preparation for a possible attack” Source: BBC News.

“Given the conduct of the Bush administration in this context, the US president’s appreciation of the Musharraf government is hardly surprising. International human rights law contains no more basic prohibition than the absolute, unconditional ban on torture and “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” To date, the Bush administration’s understanding of the term “torture” remains uncleared. 

And to make your blood boil even more I offer an excerpt from an article written by Ali Dayan Hasan for the Dawn Internet. The only Pakistan Newspaper that is printed in English”.

DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT MAY BE USED AS A DEFENSE ARGUMENT IN THE TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR NEW YORK?

”British officials knew that Pakistani intelligence agencies routinely used torture, were aware of specific cases and did not intervene,” HRW’s senior South Asia researcher, Ali Dayan Hasan, said.

Such complicity had been confirmed by unnamed UK and Pakistani officials, the report said.

bloggers note: unnamed sources is a way to say this cannot be verified!  

”A key lesson from the past eight years of global efforts to combat terrorism is that the use of torture and ill-treatment is deeply counter-productive,” Mr Hasan went on.

”It undermines the moral legitimacy of governments that rely on it and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorist organisations. ”The evil of terrorism does not justify participating in or using the results of torture. Until an independent inquiry is held and those responsible held accountable, Britain’s reputation as a rights-respecting nation will stand tarnished.”

 Some one ought to inform Mr Hasan that all WAR is immoral, but unfortunately there is only one option–to surrender to our attackers!

I would remind the reader that those who blow themselves up to kill innocent people, chop heads off Journalists, and plant IEDs to kill anyone who drives the road are religious zealots dedicated to kill anyone they feel is not Islamic! And need I remind you of the Zaccarias Moussaoui trial as an example of the bad result that can happen in the New York trial?.

But a better case for an accurate preview of what can go wrong is that of USA v. Karim Koubriti and his other co-defendants in the Detroit terror trial.  As I’ve noted in excruciating detail, after Koubriti was found guilty by a federal jury in Detroit, his lawyers and PC prosecutors conspired to get the verdict overturned.  The Justice Department (yes, it was President BUSH’s Justice Department) indicted the prosecutor (who beat the absurd charges).  Terrorist Koubriti is now living in my hometown making his way to becoming a U.S. Citizen (with the DOJ’s help).  And he’s suing the prosecutor, Richard Convertino.  That’s what can happen here with KSM and his buddies.

Winston Churchill said something that is worth quoting at this point. He said; “A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him!

Attorney General Eric Holder decided that the masterminds of the 9-11 attacks on the USA would be tried in civilian court – in New York.  He claims that he “informed” the President and only consulted his wife and brother-in-law or some such person because he was an ex-NY cop.

Obama is trying to go Arlen Specter here by claiming that he gave Holder the power to make the decision (even though it is Obama’s constitutional responsibility).

So Holder decided on civilian court.  Why?

Is it because we could get a more transparent and fair trial for … the defendants?

Did he consider any of the downsides to creating this circus atmosphere?

Did he consult an experienced prosecutor of war crimes from say, WWII? A book? Something legitimate?

No.

Holder consulted left-wing lunatics who are hell-bent on putting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on trial.

When questioned by the US Senate, Holder said that he was not going to let defendants dictate where they’d be tried.  Really?  KSM said that he wanted to be executed in a military tribunal.  Does anyone really think that he thought that anyone would be STUPID enough to give him a regular trial in civilian court?

Perhaps Holder is being to harsh and unfair on the detainees.  Perhaps they can’t get a fair trial anywhere in the USA.   After all, we are ALL biased against terrorist (or most of us anyway).  How will they get a jury of their PEERS?

How much evidence will be left after the evidence collected against them in their act of war against the US is deemed tainted (i.e. they were never read their rights before they were suddenly more cooperative and admitted their roles)?  CNN’s analyst gives the defendants 99.999% chance of being convicted.

They are pleading not-guilty by reason of “justification”.  US foreign policy is to blame – according to the defendants.  Now they were given the right to say so in a public forum.

Never before in US history has such an error been so obvious.  Never before in US history have foreign nationals and prisoners of war been granted such rights that only US citizens possess.

Holder was bad when he suggested that Bill Clinton pardon Marc Rich at the 11th hour in 2001.  His influence on the clemcy of convicted terrorists in the mid-nineties by Clinton is well documented.  Holder’s idiocy must stop here.  The consequences of his decision regarding the 9-11 attackers will harm his own President and every one to follow.

So – is it a mistake or is he doing it ON PURPOSE?

When he was questioned at his confirmation hearing as number 2 to Janet Reno, he said the following: “I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but I will enforce the law as this Congress gives it to us.”

Perhaps this is a stealth move by the anointed AG to get this death penalty off the table by having these bastards acquitted.  The Hope himself accidentally announced that Muslims would not be offended when these suspects were found guilty and subjected to the death penalty.

Mad or Mad-Genius?

Saturday Night Live is better at making the stupid obvious with this President.  They actually like Obama and his team.  If what they think about economic policy is any indication, I cannot wait until they get to this stuff.  The liberals on that show know that we are being screwed.  They had the testicular fortitude to say so by having the leader of China ask Obama to kiss him (as in when someone is “having sex” on you).

by Snidely Whiplash

We live in a majority rules nation. At least that is the concept and has largely been the history. But things are changing. Lost amongst all the other change – political, social, economic and personal, there seems to be a fundamental philosophical one too, whereby the majority party in government and their supporters are in the minority when it comes to public opinion. I think that’s telling in the extreme.

How many issues does this phenomenon apply to? Basically all of them.

The Progressives favor public show tries for KSM and his pals, despite the nation being against them. Recent polling finds Progressives favor them 34%, while the nation is against them at 64%. Why are the minority supporting this?

Because when the defendants plead not guilty they will get an unlimited soap box and worldwide media attention to defame the US. Keep in mind these men have already confessed and expressed a desire to be martyred for their jihad. To think this is A-OK is proof the Progressives want to defame this nation to change it. Make it look so bad their desired change will be more appealing.

Health care, while more ephemeral due to so many different polling organizations, is still clear – the majority – over 50% of those polled, are against the current health care proposals. Of course if anyone was paying attention, over the weekend Harry Reid bribed Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu with $300 million dollars for her vote.

Within health reform are the mammogram delaying recommendations clearly going against a majority of women and medical professionals. And now these health gurus have told young women they do not need PAP smears at 18 and only every other year after 21. I could have sworn every doctor and woman on the planet acknowledged that once a woman became sexually active, yearly PAP screening was called for. Wonder if this and the mammogram deal are about money? Duh!

To continue reading Snidely’s article, please click here.

Eric Holder and Back Hussein Obama will have blood on their hands should KSM and his cohorts have their day in Federal Court. Both the Attorney General and the President are either naive to think that this will not result in a huge platform for these alledged terrorists, or they are doing this on purpose. Obviously the appeasement approach isn’t working because these terrorists excoriate President Obama, and describe the current era as “the black ages of Barack” and call him “a liar.” Nice job guys. I can’t wait to see how you handle Iran when they don’t cooperate. Let’s hold hands and talk some more.  Hey Holder and Obama, remember this?

Obama is going to give the animals who did this, their day in court

The five men the Justice Department has said will be charged in the attacks of Sept. 11 intend to plead not guilty so they can express their political and religious views during a trial, the lawyer for one of the men said on Saturday.

The lawyer, Scott L. Fenstermaker, said that during a meeting at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison on Tuesday, his client, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, expressed the desire for a trial despite his intention to admit his role in the attacks and seek “martyrdom” through execution.

“He acknowledges that he helped plan the 9/11 attacks, and he says he’s looking forward to dying,” Mr. Fenstermaker said of Mr. Ali. But he said he expected Mr. Ali and his co-defendants to plead not guilty “so they can have a trial and try to get their message out.”

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/us/22trial.html?_r=1&sq=Scott%20Fenstermaker&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1258921726-Re3Uwo+Y8fN4qns7Oa+kRA

     AG Eric Holder and Pres. Barack Obama insist that trying the 5 9-11 Terrorists in New York City in our civilian judicial system will showcase our system of justice to “the World”. Instead, “the World” is already weighing in on how they want the trial handled:

“Germany, which does not have a death penalty, provided evidence for the trial on the condition that it could not be used to support a death sentence.”

See article at http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/23/here-we-go-world-meddling-in-911-trials-begins/

Try KSM in Gitmo?

Yo – Bring his behind on down to Brooklyn!

Why is it that all of these Republicans …

From places conservatism has made into somewhere where no terrorist would dream attack…

Because no one would notice or care (beyond the possible loss of pond scum spotted tree frog habitat)…

Suddenly believe that New Yorkers are as chickenshit…

As they are?

Associated Press

The Associated Press offered a superficial glance at a complex and alarming update in the upcoming trial of the five 9/11 defendants,  leaving me to wonder where is their thoughtful, penetrating examination of this judicial travesty about to take place in New York City. There is certainly no shortage of critical questions in want of answers.

The AP reported Sunday that the five 9/11 defendants to be tried in New York City will not deny their role in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but will nonetheless be pleading “not guilty.” This, to me, initially seemed a sure sign that the defense attorney feels compelled to observe no ethical responsibilities to the American judicial system as his clients attempt to put U.S. foreign policy on trial.

9/11 defense attorney Scott Fenstermaker

The attorney assigned to defend the five terrorists on trial, Scott Fenstermaker, reported Sunday that all five of his clients are also planning to use the “stage” they are given to deliver their radical Jihadist message and explain why they believe more Americans must die. The Obama Administration can’t say they weren’t warned – again, and again, and again.

There is the possibility that Fenstermaker has chosen the path of least resistance in representing his clients, for the sake of self-preservation.  There can be no doubt this case will have a significant impact on his career – for better or worse. But what we may perceive during this trial as over-zealous representation may be the actions of a defense attorney caught between the rock of the American justice system and the hard place of representing hardened terrorists who would stop at nothing to continue their mission against America.

Either way, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration, which pulls his strings, opted to take great risks with a trial in our civilian judicial system, and for no clear, justifiable reason.  Even if the trial concludes without incident, the results would not justify the risk. If it does not go without incident, the results could be catastrophic.

Holder’s defense to the outrage following the announcement of the trial in NYC was weak, aloof and dismissive of the true weight of his choice.

“I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is,” Holder said. “I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be, either.”

The blatant arrogance and ignorance exhibited by the Obama Administration and Holder is of far less concern than the wider implications to our judicial system. Merely saying that these five terrorists will have the same rights as any other American defendant in our court system doesn’t begin to convey the realities of the situation in which our justice system has been placed.

John Yoo, a columnist with the Philadelphia Inquirer and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, made up for the AP’s lack of insight on the trial when he wrote extensively on the disaster about to unfold:

“…the positive benefits [of a civilian trial] remain obscure to the point of vanishing. All that is known for certain are the heavy costs:

Giving Mohammed and his fellow terrorists the same constitutional rights as any U.S. citizen accused of a crime risks our nation’s most vital intelligence secrets. Mohammed can demand that the government turn over all of its information on him and tell him how it was acquired or it risks a mistrial or acquittal. Soviet moles like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen used the same tactic to bargain the government down from the death penalty. Ordinarily, such information does not harm the public because the crime has already been committed. But the release of intelligence during hostilities can be disastrous when it informs the enemy of our knowledge, capabilities, and intentions.”

He went on to say:

“This red herring [Holder’s statement] distracts from the administration’s failure to explain why the benefits of using civilian courts outweigh the costs to the war effort. It certainly doesn’t help those who are already protected by the Bill of Rights and can be tried in civilian courts. If anything, their rights are at risk, not just by a failure to convict terrorists who killed almost 3,000 people, but by the inevitable judicial compromises that must balance the requirements of a fair public trial with the demands of protecting wartime secrets. Those compromises will no longer be limited to the special context of military courts in wartime, but will become part of the law that governs all Americans.”

Until the trial concludes, Americans will be forced to hold their breath and hope the Obama/Holder decision doesn’t cost us all a great deal in life and/or liberties.

Week of 11/16/09  through 11/22/09

LOSERS

Recovery.gov & Vice President Biden  

In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that a spending package as big as his historic stimulus package, we had to make sure we spend it right. He added “Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending,”. He then proceeded to give the job of insuring that it was spent right and that every dime was accounted for to Vice Presdinet Bonehead….I mean Biden.  The President said “I’ve asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort — because nobody messes with Joe.”  Really? If that’s true——-WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED THAN?

10 or so months since the deficit busting measure was enacted, with its main purpose being “job creation”, here we are and with the highest unemployment in over a quarter of a century and more people out work since he took office than were out of work before he took office,  3.8 million more in fact  The President insists his great stimulus package is greasing the engine that creates jobs.

NOT EXACTLY!

It would seem that it is greasing more palms than job creating cogs and thanks to Recovery.gov and Vice President Biden we have no idea of what has really been spent, who has really gotten the money and what jobs, if any have really been created. Joe’s great oversight had Recovery.org recording that a whole host of jobs were being created in one state’s fifteenth Congressional District. Problem is the state in question only has 8 Congressional Districts. In Oklahoma, a  joint effort that received six military contracts counted the same 10 jobs six times. According to Recovery.org and the Vice President, a shoe-store owner claimed he created nine jobs on an $889.60 contract. In fact, he supplied nine pairs of shoes to the Army Corps of Engineers. In Washington state, The Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency reported 205  jobs created or saved with $397,761. The money was actually used for pay raises.

There were literally hundreds of false reports such as this discovered so far——-so far!.

What this essentially means is that President Obama was full of crap when he promised the most transparent and ethical Administration ever. It means that the American people are being lied to and that the job figures coming out of the Whitehouse are wrong and not to be taken seriously. It also means that although nobody may “mess with Joe”, Joe is actually more messed up than any of us thought when we told, then Senator Obama,  that Joe Biden was a dimwitted dunce with a mouth so big he could fit both his and the President’s set of feet in it.

Recovery.Org and the man in charge of accounting for the so called stimulus money, are the biggest losers of the week. Unfortunately and more importantly, all of us are also losers because right now billions of our tax dollars are being wasted on we don’t what.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

I call him Pimp Daddy Reid and this week he is the biggest loser because he literally broke the bank on trying to get his healthcare bill over a procedural hurdle. He didn’t get the bill passed, he simply help avoid a filibuster thereby giving his government takeover of health care the chance to see another day of light.  But just to pass this simple procedural hurdle, he pimped out at least a fourth of his fellow Democrat Senators. None more than Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, the Magnolia Madame. This political prostitute held out for $100 million dollars that was artfully written into the healthcare reform bill and designated to go to her state for Medicaid subsidies.

Now she can go back to Louisianans and tell them that she got them a hundred million bucks. But what she wont tell them is that she may have cost them about 650 million with a bill, that if passed, will tax the life out of the health of her state’s people.

In the meantime, Reid conducted the entire bill drafting and deal making process behind closed doors. He never once tried to work with Republicans or let them work with him and is clearly going for the nuclear option on passage of the bill. And while all this scheming is going on, lord knows how much all his deal making is costing us. He promised $100 million to Landrieu, to sit back, shut and do what he says but how much will he be paying to the other liberal whores out that there that face a tough reelection bid in 2010? How much will Max Baucus get? What will Lieberman be offered?

This week, even though Pimp Daddy Reid won a strictly party line that prevented a filibuster, he is a loser. He promised so much pork barrel spending just to make sure that his conference agreed to debate the bill that healthcare reform is already proving to be too costly. Lord knows how much more of our money he will pimp out other Democrats for to actually get them to pass the bill.

President Obama

President Obama promised to have a health care reform bill that Americans could be confident in. He promised that the entire process creating the bill would be carried on C-Span and he promised America that his entire presidency would be the most ethical and transparent ever.

Well guess what Mr. President?  As Joe Wilson would say————YOU LIED!!!!!

The entire health care reform process was conducted behind closed doors and among Democrats only. The President’s party is preparing to go nuclear on the issue and his legislative leaders have turned the House into a brothel, chock filled with  political prostitutes.

And at the same time, President Obama has failed to even once step in and offer leadership on the issue…… Real leadership.   He has offered lip service and rhetoric but nothing more. He has not once been man enough to have his chief of staff, Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel, sit down and draft any aspect of this bill with the President and tell Congress, “this is something we should work with”.  In 1993, when Hillary care flopped, part of the problem was the her husband B.J. Clinton had his wife write the entire bill. Congress had nothing to do with it. In the end, they still had nothing to do with it. They simply rejected it. Now in President Obama’s case, he hasn’t written a thing. Instead he just threw this piece of raw meat on the floor of Congress and allowed for a free for all that has so far written almost 5,000 pages of healthcare legislation that pays for everything from Mary Landrieu’s reelection effort to loans to veterinarians….that’s veterinarians, not veterans.

Essentially what we have here is a mess that only promises to get messier, especially if this mess becomes law.

President Obama is truly a loser this week and I believe that this week will produce a significant dip in his poll numbers because I also believe that many other people are seeing what Politics 24/7 is seeing.

WINNERS

Pat Toomey 

The Pennsylvania conservative who still believes that the Republican Party could again someday stand for the principles that once made it great, is a winner this week. He did nothing special to earn the win, but he didn’t do anything to detract from it. In the meantime, whoever is going to oppose him has really deepened themselves into a primary that will be bloody and costly.

Liberal Democrat Congressman Joe Sestak has kicked up his campaign for the Democrat nomination while Liberal Republican turned Liberal Democrat, incumbent,  Arlen “How Many Years Have I Been Here” Specter, also dug his heels in. Specter became a Democrat because he could not beatToomey in a promised Republican primary and now it is not certain if he can win a Democrat primary. And if he doesn’t win, Joe Sestak will have exhausted a lot of his own  financial resources to remain standing for the general election.

A few weeks ago Toomey was considered the underdog in the general election, but now, as his opponents start slicing eachother up, Pat Toomey is now even in polls that have Toomey in hypothetical match ups with either Sestak or Specter. Between that and the growing dissatisfaction that voters, nationwide, have with incumbents right now, the environment is continuously becoming more and more favorable for a Toomey victory in 2010. So this week, he’s a winner

Scott Fenstermaker

Fenstermaker is the defense attorney for one of the 9/11 Five enemy combatants currently in the Guantanamo Bay prison. On Sunday, Fenstermaker came out and warned officials that they really need to reconsider having these murderers tried in a civilian court rather than in the military tribunal that they are suppose to be tried in.

After visiting with his client in Guantanamo, Fenstermaker warned that a long trial is going to create some severe national security risks due to both the testimony that will have to come out and the retaliatory acts of terror that the public trial will inspire. He also confirmed that all five will be pleading not guilty and they will use the platform given to them, to spread their anti-American messages and articulate their opinion of American foreign policy.

This is coming from the man defending one of these five terrorists. Now if the defense attorney can see this, how come the Attorney General of the United states can’t see it? The fact that Scott Fenstermakercame forward to provide this insider opinion of the dangerous situation, makes him a winner.

Ed Mangano

Who the heck is Ed Mangano? Well he just may be the next County Executive of New York’s Nassau County on Long Island. Even though Nassau County has been a fairly strong Republican county, Managano was given little chance of defeating popular incumbent Tom Souzzi. Democrats have seen their voter registrations increase and they not only took the back the county executive office but they had also taken control of the county legislature. So it was looking like Nassau County was trending towards a blue future.

However; in the November 3rd election, Republicans regained control of the county legislature and Tom Souzzi, well he was denied the opportunity to make a victory speech. Onnelection night Tommy Boy found himself with a lead that was too close to call.

Now weeks later, with 8,000 paper ballots needed to be counted, Ed Managano is leading Tom Souzzi by more than 350 votes. This is a pretty harsh blow to a man who after once winning a relatively good Republican in New York saw himself as a candidate with so much wide appeal, that he immediately decided to run for Governor. He challenged, then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, for the Democrat nomination. Souzzi ended up with less than 29% of the vote. As it turned out, with the scandalous conduct of Spitzer that forced him out of the Governor’s office, Suozzi might have been the better choice. New Yorker’s would have had the Governor they elected and Suozzi would still have a job.

The importance of Managano’s race is not based so much on him.   It is based more on the fact that Nassau  is a crucial downstate County in statewide elections.  Without a good Republican operation and groundswell of Republican support in Nassau County that can compensate for the heavy Democrat vote that comes out of neighboring New York City, the chances for any Republican to win any statewide election are slim.   So Mangano’s come from behind signifies some important  momentum in 2010.

As it stands now, Suozzi may be out of his job and the underdog, Ed Mangano, seems to be on his way to an unanticipated election victory. There are still many ballots to be counted and Mangano could lose his lead but even if that does happen and Suozzi gets sworn in again, the fact that Mangano has gotten this far makes him a winner and a shoe in next time around. But it looks like he will not have to wait. I think he will ultimately widen his lead and be declared the winner this time around.

So long Tommy.

This combination of undated photos shows, from left: Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Waleed bin Attash, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ramzi Binalshibh. The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday, Nov. 22, 2009. (AP Photos)

Nov 22, 10:28 PM EST

Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views

By KAREN MATTHEWS

NEW YORK (AP) — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said.

“Their assessment is negative,” he said.

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He has not spoken with the others but said the men have discussed the trial among themselves.

Fenstermaker was first quoted in The New York Times in Sunday’s editions.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

via News from The Associated Press.

    Scott Fenstermaker is the attorney for one of the 9/11 Five…….the five enemy combatants who admitted to playing a roll in the attacks of September 11^th in 2001.

Under the direction of attorney General Eric Holder, the Obama Administration decided that these mass murders, who are responsible for the most devastating attack on America in our history, are to be tried in a civilian court that is only blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City.

Today, Scott Fenstermaker, the man who will be representing one of the five men facing trial. has urged that we get these guys through the system quickly.

Even their own defense attorney believes that the these five terrorists should be tried in a military tribunal instead of a civilian court.

Fenstermaker visited his clients in their Guantanamo Bay prison last week and today he reports that all five 9/11 conspirators will not deny the specific roles they played in the tragedy but they will also use the stage they are given to deliver their radical messages. According to Fenstermaker each one is preparing to give their assessment of foreign policy and how it caused them to kill 3,000 Americans. They will also make clear why they believe more must die.

Is this justice? Is this what the United States Department of Justice considers a good way to deliver justice to those who made America stand still for a time? These are of course rhetorical questions. No sane person can conclude that any good can come from allowing those who were responsible for 9/11 to deliver their political views and promote their radical Islamic message. This is not justice, it is simply a reward. A reward that allows them to try to repeat the statement they tried to make on 9/11.

Each day since the Obama Administration refused to let the enemy combatants to be tried as such, more and more evidence has been produced that proves the decision to try these terrorists in a civilian court is nothing but wrong. The recent remarks of the man who is suppose to be on these guys side in court confirm that. And even he disagrees with the venue for clients trial.

Is the Obama Administration so mentally incapacitated that they do not understand this? Does the President not realize that the heightened tension that the specter of a circus-like civilian trial will create increased national security risks and gamble with the lives of civilians? This is a decision that will haunt President Obama right up until his last day office.  In the mean time, the men behind 9/11 appreciate the paltform the President is giving them to denounce America from.

Some one is going to inevitably pay a price for this decision.  I just pray that it won’t be us, the American people who have already been the victim of one of the most massive terrorits attacks ever.