Friday, November 13, 2009

Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be Tried in NYC (Updated)

The outrages from the Obama Administration just keep on coming.

Michelle Malkin has the story this morning.

It’s Friday. The president is flying off to Asia. Congress is not in session. Perfect time to drop a bombshell on the American people:

The Obama administration is bringing 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York City for a civilian trial.

No, it’s not a joke.

Malkin includes an e-mail sent out to the 9/11 victims, as well as this response that one of them sent back:

We have an announcement as well: we will fight with every remaining breath in our bodies both their bringing KSM and the rest of the 9/11 conspirators to federal courtrooms within walking distance of where they slaughtered our loved ones. And whomever finds Manhattan’s federal courthouse near Ground Zero a “sentimental favorite” for the 9/11 trials is a damn fool and they ALL ought to be fired. Pass that message on, far, wide, and up and down the chain-of-command.

You can petition President Obama here.

Here's how Michelle Malkin concludes:

If this White House thought Tea Party activists were an “angry mob,” wait until they see the backlash from 9/11 family members and their supporters nationwide. We’re not going to sit down and shut up about the reckless, security-undermining Obama 9/10 agenda and conflict-of-interest-ridden AG Eric Holder.

Call them out.

And check out that last link to our Attorney General's conflict of interest. Strong words are called for, so I'd better go and say my swear words in private...


David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine today called this "the worst decision by a U.S. President in history.

The administration is justifying its decisions on the grounds that because the 9/11 attackers targeted civilians they should be tried as civilians. This makes no sense unless you are a Democrat who believes that the “holy war” that Islamic jihadists have formally declared on us is no different from the acts of isolated individuals who have decided to break the law. This is the approach to the war on terror that John Kerry championed in 2004. Now that Americans have had the poor judgment — the suicidally poor judgment — to make a leftist their president, this is the strategy our nation is set to pursue.

The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery. It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan — a hatred shared by their apologists at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights who have pioneered the campaign against Guantanamo and whose influence in the Obama Administration is pervasive.

This is insane. Or else it's treason. Obama is selling our national security down the river for the sake of pleasing his far-left base. It's starting to sound like impeachment might be in order...


Tsofah said...


I'm finding it hard to refrain from some selected expressions myself. It is only by the grace of G-d that I'm not spitting out choice words myself.

Why NYC, I wonder? The crimes were committed there, in D.C., and in Pennsylvania. They could have had the trial in Pennsylvania without rubbing salt in the wounds of those who lost loved ones in 2001.

I just can't wrap my mind around this one.

Anonymous said...

What on earth is the objection to this? Do people seriously think that having the trial specifically in New York is going to somehow cause more terrorist attacks? They're holding the trial in New York because that's where the crime was carried out; you can't just ignore the district court system because you don't like the symbolism.

And the notion that the trial should be held in secret because the already widely known and reported facts of American torture would suddenly become "a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers" is one of the most childish things I've ever heard. Essentially what the argument is saying is "we may have committed unconscionable acts of torture and violated international law and our own Constitution, all in the name of the American public, but the real treason is allowing these injustices to be brought to light, because PEOPLE MIGHT GET MAD!"


SkyePuppy said...

E, my son,

The objection is not the symbolism (although bringing KSM to trial in NYC is a slap in the face of the victims). And the objection is also not the propaganda effect of "torture" (although that's certain to raise the dander of certain fanatics whose religion shall remain unnamed).

No, the concern is that, among other things, we would be giving terrorists all the protections due to US citizens, when these terrorists attacked the US in an act of war, are NOT US citizens, did NOT plan their attacks on US soil, and were NOT captured in the US. And among of those protections is the right to discovery by the defense, which would give the terrorists (and the world) access to state secrets such as our intelligence-gathering methods. And THAT would set our security back on its heels and make us easier targets, even sitting ducks for future attacks.

Military tribunals were good enough for FDR to use when he prosecuted (and hanged) the Nazis who invaded the US during WWII. And military tribunals are good enough for Khalid Sheik Mohammed. They will give the terrorists fair trials without the media circus and without the threat to national security.

Obama obviously cares more about his hard-left supporters than he does about the safety and security of the American people.

You and I, my son, need to agree to disagree on this one, before things have a chance to get ugly.

Malott said...

This is Obama's love letter to the ACLU and every other leftist group that loathes America.