In Terrorist Trial, Democrats Put Party Above Country
Tags: Terrorist Trial.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Who really thought that KSM and the like would ever show up in a US court?
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Attorney General Eric Holder about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. As the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93, I was able to attend that hearing…
…The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the division in our country not only visually—the Democrats were seated on the left and the Republicans on the right—but in every aspect of the proceedings. I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and that others would have challenging questions about his decision. What I did not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the majority party. It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty is trumping concern for America’s security interests…
…During the proceedings a young lady, dutifully attentive, sat with a stack of paper about 15 inches high on her lap. The papers contained names, single spaced, of some 100,000 people who signed a letter in opposition to this decision. This young woman, Jill Regan, lost her dad, Donald J. Regan, FDNY of the Bronx, who died trying to save others on 9/11. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Al.) asked that those names be entered into the record at the end of the session. It was agreed, but by that time the chairmen and most of the Democrats were already gone. I grieved for her—and for all of us—anew.
Why are we doing this? To placate the left. The kook left has made it clear that they want this because it will, in their mind, allow them to put President Bush and the United States on trial. Normally, such asinine views are shunted aside, but Holder is a kook leftist, himself, and thus found merit in the idea. Meanwhile, the Democrat party simply will not call their own to account – rather than cause a moments discomfort to Obama and his Administration, Democrats go along with the worst decision this Administration has made.
Such have we come to – that the enemies of America will be helped by the American government to attack America.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
17 Responses to “In Terrorist Trial, Democrats Put Party Above Country”
Caucus of Corruption
What lawful defense does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have? I mean, seriously? What chance does he have of acquittal? I’d rate it somewhere lower than a snowballs chance in hell.
So when he’s convicted and given the death penalty and executed – will you then be satisfied, or will you continue to complain about Democrats even when justice has been served? I’m betting its the latter.
Except that they haven’t made that clear. They have made clear that they want Bush to be tried, and that they want KSM to be tried (in a federal court), but they do not view those as the same thing, because they know that the Justice Department has already rejected using evidence that would implicate the previous administration. They’re not even going to use the evidence that was gathered by that administration in its attempt to get “clean” evidence after having already gotten that evidence via harsh techniques. Additionally, they know that if Obama wanted this information to come out, he would just declassify it himself.
RE: I’m betting its the latter.
No, his own country must take action and try him over there, because … then that way he’d be punished for his wrongs in the right place. But if we, the United States do it, then that’s the same as bowing before our enemy. Just like I tried to explain to you in another thread. Obama don’t know his enemy, because he is with the enemy.
My guess is that, if this civilian trial works out well, the Conservatives here will admit they were wrong (I know I will). If this blows up in Holder’s face, the Lefties here like AF will go hide under their favorite rock, like they usually do when good intentions go awry. Although, in this case, I don’t think there is anything GOOD about the intentions to proceed in this manner.
spook
I don’t think there is anything GOOD about the intentions to proceed in this manner.
It is a disguised witch hunt for Bush and Cheney.
The sheer willful naivete, or denial, take your pick, of the RRL is glaring. AF queries, “What lawful defense does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have? I mean, seriously? ”
The first two, just off the top of my head, are the inadmissability of every single statement he has given regarding the attack and potential defects in chain of custody on any evidence gathered.
The RRL keep bleating “But HE HAS ALREADY CONFESSED !!! ” But those confessions simply cannot be entered as evidence, because now that he has been handed the same protections as granted to US citizens committing crimes on US soil, nothing he said before being Mirandized can be considered.
And then of course there is discovery. He can and no doubt will demand to see every single thing leading up to his arrest—every intelligence report, including the names of those involved, every detail of how the investigation proceeded and who said and did what. This could unravel our intelligence efforts in the area as well as put agents and their sources at risk.
Then, of course, there is the spectacle of every single terrorist arrested now and awaiting trial being able to demand and get a full court proceeding addressing the different standards applied to KSM and four others, and demanding that they, too, be allowed to be tried in federal court.
And of course the clear message that it is much safer and more productive to attack US citizens on US soil than to mount attacks elsewhere, especially on military targets, now that the official US position is that the former will get the perks of being considered plain ol’ crimninals, with the attending rights and privileges, while the latter will have to face military tribunals.
Brilliant move,absolutely brilliant—let’s incentivize further attacks on civilians here in the USA.
But I fear that the nation will be in much the same position in which it was placed at the election of Obama—there is nothing to do but sit back and wait to see what disasters develop as the radicals go crazy with their newly-gained power and start to use it to implement all sorts of radical agendas the average (ignorant) Obama-voter had no idea existed.
The RRL will play its games of payback and retaliation, of social experimentation and self-indulgence, the “moderates” who were too lazy to actually LEARN anything before they voted but just let themselves get swept up in the cliches of Hope and Change and will become alarmed at the totally predictable outcome of their emotionalism, and the grown-ups will have to step in anc clean up the mess.
And the above comments, all of which have been repeated and explained over and over again to the evident dismissal of such as the fox, don’t even address the cost of this foolishness, either in monetary outlay or the risk of life and property as NYC once again becomes Ground Zero.
retiredspook says: November 23rd, 2009 at 9:24 am
well, except for the inconvienent truth that the conviction rate for the federal courts v military tribunals is NEAR TWO HUNDRED TO 3.
try, convict, then hang ‘em at ground zero!
00
try, convict, then hang ‘em at ground zero! and bury them there in a grave filled with pig guts.
my only question is how long to let the corpses hang n rot before burying ‘em w those pig guts?
Terror trials vary in civilian, military courts
By Mark Sherman – The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Nov 22, 2009 11:24:35 EST
“But he (holder) also said those who attacked a civilian target on U.S. soil were being sent to a civilian federal court and those who attacked or plotted against military targets abroad were going before tribunals.
Holder’s formulation puts the U.S. in the position of distinguishing between American interests based on which government agency was attacked. The attack on a Navy warship, the Cole, is to be handled by military commission, while the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 have been prosecuted by successive administrations in federal court.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/ap_military_tribunals_112209/
I actually hope KSM is acquitted, snd the result is the impeachment and trial of Obama.
AF,
I’m opposed to the death penalty – even for KSM. So, no, his execution wouldn’t satisfy me.
The problem with the trial is not just whether or not we’ll get a conviction, but the very concept that people such as international terrorists have rights under US law that we are bound to respect. This isn’t a crime like robbing a bank – and only a complete fool (ie, you liberals) can view it as such.
I would like to say that I cannot believe the hubris being shown by the Democrats. But, I am afraid that it is very easy to believe. I do believe that there are some people who deserve the death penalty, and KSM and his defendants do qualify. Especially given that if sentenced to life in prison, they would have to be sequestered from other inmates – now if they were subject to inmate justice – well that would be ok.
I actually hope KSM is acquitted, snd the result is the impeachment and trial of Obama
A short while back, Mark alluded to the notion that liberal New Yorkers might acquit KSM based on their hatred of Bush…
my only question is how long to let the corpses hang n rot before burying ‘em w those pig guts?
Why would you want to desecrate Ground Zero with that filth? That is now hallowed ground. The remains of many unidentified victims are still buried there.
Also as I have stated before, death is what they are looking for. Why make martyrs out of them? And I agree that trying them in NYC will make this an unnecessary spectacle. I would happy to see them quietly convicted by a military tribunal and rot in jail forever.
Nothing he said before being Mirandized and after being arrested can be considered, nor does it need to be.
Here you may have a point. If this does happen, the administration will deserve the blame.
What percent of post-9/11 attacks at home have succeeded? What percentage of those abroad?
Impeachment for what?
Should Jeffery Dahmer have had rights? Note that I am asking “should”, not “did”. Legally he did have rights, just as legally KSM has rights. Remember, he violated a federal law, and there is precedent (USA v. Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel-Rahman et al) for the application of this type of law to foreign nationals. You may disagree that the law and the precedent should be like this, but you cannot deny that they are.