Tuesday, November 17, 2009

National Security Goes To Trial In New York City

That handsome devil you see in the picture is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, chief terrorist and planner of the September 11, 2001 attack on New York City. Barack Obama has planned a big circus for the mass murderer's arrival on the scene of his greatest victory. It will be called a "civilian trial," but circus is a much better description.

For the past few days I've heard all kinds of ridiculous logic emanating from the mouths of liberals and Obama Democrats about what a brilliant idea this is. Bringing a criminal to the scene of his crime to be tried by the people he tormented but didn't kill. A great opportunity to prove the efficacy of the American system of justice. A chance to get to "the truth" and have a public forum for convicting a dangerous criminal.

Nonsense, all dangerous nonsense. To start with, he is not a criminal, and doesn't belong in an American civilian criminal court. He is a terrorist and a foreigner, caught in a foreign land near a battlefield brought on by his actions which violate nearly every civilized rule of war. He is not an American citizen, and he wasn't captured on American soil. As a prisoner of war, he is susceptible to the rule of being held in a prisoner of war camp until the war is over. As a war criminal, he is entitled to a military tribunal, not a civilian trial on mainland American soil.

If bringing him to trial in a traditional civilian criminal court for the purpose of demonstrating impartial American justice is the goal, why take him to the one place where nearly every local citizen was impacted personally in some dreadful way by his actions? And the constant mantra of the Obamists that Mohammed will be found guilty ("no way is he going to be found not guilty") smacks of a fixed game rather than an impartial imposition of justice. The action also strongly implies that a military tribunal would not get at the truth. And as for demonstrating the wonders of the American civilian justice system, it will in fact prove the damned foolishness of trying to conduct a genuine trial of a highly-political, foreign terrorist in a traditional criminal trial setting. The Zacarias Moussaoui trial already demonstrated what a foolish exercise this is, and Moussaoui was at least captured on American mainland soil.

None of those are the actual reasons behind the nefarious and dangerous decision of the Obama administration to bring the trials to the mainland in a civilian court. The true meaning of this action is a chance for the Obama to exercise its obsession with the superiority of the "criminal model" over the "war model" for trying mass-murdering terrorists, along with the opportunity to put his predecessor on trial in absentia for violating the "constitutional rights" of foreign terrorists. And juiciest of all, it will give the loathsome Eric Holder his big chance to attack Congressionally-approved enhanced interrogation techniques. And if enhanced interrogation forced information out of the terrorists, doesn't Miranda prevent the use of any of the evidence against them as fruit of the poisonous tree? No matter, it's the principle that counts.

Jacob Laksin says in FrontPage magazine: "In the annals of poor political judgment, the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay-based terrorist detainees in a New York City federal court may yet rank as a blunder without peer in American history." The administration has put America on trial and potentially endangered the country to score a political point against his predecessor.

We all know that the defense attorneys will attempt to obtain a dismissal on the ground that the terrorists were "tortured," a loaded political expression which the left has been bandying about for years. Waterboarding, a very successful technique used against Khalid Mohammed, was sanctioned at the time, but is now considered torture. It would never be allowed by any administration for use against an American citizen on American soil, but Mohammed doesn't fit either description. In the long run, that may not matter. So don't be too sure that either at trial or on appeal, the terrorists will not walk.

As in the Moussaoui trial, this thing will drag out interminably, with multiple opportunities for Mohammed to get his terrorist messages out to the public. There will be grandstanding, dismissal of attorneys, demands to represent himself, motions for change of venue and suppression of evidence, and TV coverage galore. In the meantime, secret documents and national security information otherwise forbidden to the defense in a military tribunal will be demanded and obtained by the civilian defense. And they can promise from now until doomsday that it will all remain confidential, but you're likely to read much of it on the front page of the New York Times within hours. American soldiers and CIA operatives overseas will be endangered and killed as a result of the leaks of military secrets.

But it's all worth it if Holder can play "gotcha" with the Bush people, right? And if he is convicted, Mohammed will get his shot at martyrdom. Not quietly in a military prison far away from the press, but in an American forum, with all the trappings of civil martyrdom. All that will be missing is the elephants and the high-wire acts.

23 comments:

Writer X said...

Chilling. It was also interesting to see how Obama clearly said this was "Holder's decision," as if he had no part in it. Yeah, right. Yet another example of the Obama administration putting its own selfish interests before the good (and safety) of the country.

I wonder how many voters in NY the Obama administration has created or saved with this decision?

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Another blurring of the lines between Military and Civilian courts. Next, we will hear that Politically Incorrect Hate Crimes Talk will be tried in Military Courts off the United States at Guantanimo because information routinely thrown out of Civilian courts will be admitted during a War Tribunals.

This is an exaggeration, but you get my drift.

StanH said...

Most defense attorneys that I have known consider it a badge of honor to win their cases, in other words get someone off. However, these are not common street criminals, but sworn enemies of America. A clever defense attorney could gain their release, and then what? I pray that the Holder Justice Dept. uses their “Pros from Dover,” and best US Attorneys available for the prosecution. But, if experience tells us anything with Barry and company, they will use some PC litmus test to fill the positions, diluting the effectiveness, we’ll see. But as an aside, don’t we feel so much better about ourselves, in our high-mindedness, …sheesh!

BevfromNYC said...

Thanks Lawhawk, all my fears confirmed. When KSM is found innocent by reason of insanity [because you know that's coming too] can we impeach Obama for his breach of his oath of office "to the best of [his] ability,[to]preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? He doesn't seem to be doing any of those things right now. Though I truly believe he is doing this to "the best of [his] ability".

USArtguy said...

When a Dane pokes a little fun at Mohammed in a cartoon and Muslims riot in the streets, what makes Obama & Co. think that the NY judge and jury trying KSM won't be getting serious death threats?

AndrewPrice said...

I saw that Gov. Patterson is furious about this. How funny is that -- Obama getting more flack from his left flank.

I agree with X, how cowardly to put this on Holder when there is no way this wasn't approved by Obama.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - What does Patterson have to lose? He's already been thrown under, backed up on, and run over again by the Obamabus. He's just returning the favor by trying to embarrass Obama. Fine with me. So far, it's about the only thing Patterson is doing right since taking office.

AndrewPrice said...

Don't get me wrong Bev, I know it's just about payback for him, but I'm enjoying it a lot. . . :-)

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: Obama needs to drag out Harry Truman's desk plaque--"The Buck Stops Here." Obama and Holder are like Siamese twins--joined at the brain.

LawHawkSF said...

Joel: It's not really a blurring of the lines. That would be bad enough. But this is a reiteration of the principle of the superiority of civilian trials over military trials, even when the facts all say the trial should be strictly military. They are two entirely different concepts, and choosing the civilian forum says "we're not at war, we're just cleaning up crime."

Tennessee Jed said...

The libs have always seen this as a criminal enterprise not a 'war.' . . . and, as certified "blame America first" people and everything is fair in love and politics, I must ask "did anybody expect anything else from these clowns?"

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: Unfortunately, the left and Euro-weenies do see this as "high-mindedness." It's their way of justifying the unjustifiable. This is legal stupidity of the highest order, so in that way, I guess it is high-minded.

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: Unfortunately, plain damn stupidity and political game-playing are not legitimate grounds for impeachment. The leftist concept of "if we love them, they'll love us" is still the majority view in Congress. Obama/Holder have now extended the open hand of peace to the terrorists and the raised middle finger to Americans in general, and New Yorkers in particular.

LawHawkSF said...

USArtGuy: They'll get death threats by the busload. And there will be plenty of public notices from terrorists addressing the jury with death threats as well. The judges have bodyguards, bailiffs and the police to protect them. Who is going to protect those jurors?

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: Paterson saw the light! OK, sorry, couldn't resist. The governor has still not realized he's a political dead duck, and will do what's necessary to gain the trust of New Yorkers. However, in this situation, I think he is probably speaking sincerely.

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: In the immortal words of Malcolm X, "chickens coming home to roost don't make me sad, it makes me glad." Obama is quickly hoisting himself on his own petard.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk--Did Holder take acting lessons before law school? I keep seeing him popping up on TV to justify his perversion of American justice, and he looks so damned sincere talking about the reasons behind bringing terrorists to a civilian criminal court in our largest city.

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: Holder and Obama took acting classes in law school. They're replacements for obsolete core curriculum classes like contracts, torts, and of course, constitutional law. Among the courses available: Teleprompter-reading with sincerity, How to pretend you understand the Constitution without laughing, and How to demean the military while appearing to support them.

Toronto houses said...

I think, the decision to try KSM at the civilian court was rather a populist one, some of the means Obama attempts to seem likeable for the public opinion, although he didn't succeed here. I think, especially with his juristic education, he would think this through much better, because even a layman can do it here. First of all the fact that KSM was being detained as a POW establishes the qualification of the crime itself and from here there is only a one way to go and that is the military tribunal. And secondly all legal technicalities that might negatively affect a fair punishment are huge, for instance if the confession given during torturing will be proclaimed as an inadmissible evidence, we have a reasonable doubt and God knows how the decision would be. Elli

LawHawkSF said...

Toronto: The whole decision simply makes no sense outside of the political decision to prefer the criminal model over the war model combined with the opportunity to pull a Banana Republic attack on the previous administration. It serves no genuine legal or constitutional purpose, and endangers American national security in a manner nearly impossible to comprehend.

LawHawkSF said...

Tennessee: Sorry. I don't know how I skipped over your comment. They've called the criminal murderers in the urban centers "gangsters" and the mass blood-letting on the streets "gang wars," so it shouldn't be too surprising that the provincial and parochial Democrats who think of themselves as urban sophisticates would see no difference between "crime" and "war." They are ignorant and self-deceiving beyond any hope of correction.

houses in GTA said...

LawHawkSF: I completely agree, it seems like an attack against the previous Bush's administration and the original purpose is somehow compromised with some political one and that is to sue the methods of the previous government, which here would also include the torturing technics of interrogation in Guatanamo. And that might become a serious problem here. If Obama and Holder would just realise that taking such a risk is not worth any revenge. Elli

DCAlleyKat said...

More and more I am of the opinion that this 'trial' is being used to change our judicial system in ways that would never be accepted through legislation. There are precedents that will be set that do not bode well for freedom loving American citizens. It is a judicial coup-de-tat!

Post a Comment