US attorney general Eric Holder recently announced that five Islamist radicals charged with the 9/11 attacks – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi – would not be tried in civilian courts in New York City as he had wanted, but in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.
Heavens, what is this world coming to! Where are the Constitutional protections for our good Islamic brothers? Where is our “fairness”?
Answer: Terrorists never fight fair. They are demanding Geneva Conventions protections when those protections apply to people who represent a nation or wear a uniform. Terrorist don’t, and they do all sorts of anti-Geneva things like shooting from mosques and cemeteries, hiding behind women and children, and murdering innocent people in the name of their cause.
And like Obama’s persistent habit of blaming Bush for everything, Holder managed to blame this Obama administration policy rout on Congress, saying:
‘Unfortunately, since I made that decision (for civilian trials), members of Congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States, regardless of the venue. As the President has said, those unwise and unwarranted restrictions undermine our counterterrorism efforts and could harm our national security. Decisions about who, where and how to prosecute have always been – and must remain – the responsibility of the executive branch. Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence and other information necessary to make prosecution judgments. Yet they have taken one of the nation’s most tested counterterrorism tools off the table and tied our hands in a way that could have serious ramifications. We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions.’ (end of excerpt)
This is the same Eric Holder who, as assistant attorney general, helped Bill Clinton to release 16 Puerto Rican terrorists from jail in 2000, and, in 2001, to pardon rogue international financier Marc Rich. The same attorney general who declined to prosecute black election-law violators, calling them “my people”.
“My people”? Since when does the attorney general of the United States choose sides in legal cases based on criteria so blatantly cosmetic as race?
Answer: Since Obama took office. This indeed is the New World Order.
Holder added in his statement:
‘As the indictment unsealed today reveals, we were prepared to bring a powerful case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators – one of the most well-researched and documented cases I have ever seen in my decades of experience as a prosecutor…. Since I made the decision to prosecute the alleged 9/11 conspirators, the effectiveness of our federal courts and the thousands of prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, and defense attorneys who work in them have been subjected to a number of unfair, and often unfounded, criticisms. Too many people – many of whom certainly know better – have expressed doubts about our time-honored and time-tested system of justice. That’s not only misguided, it’s wrong. The fact is, federal courts have proven to be an unparalleled instrument for bringing terrorists to justice.’ (end of excerpt)
Uhhh, sorry, Mr. Holder, but here is a report from the New York Times on November 17, 2010 about the trial of Ahmed Ghailani, who is a black African:
‘The first former Guantanamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.
… Throughout the case, Mr. (Ahmed) Ghailani seemed at ease with his lawyers, smiling frequently. (end of excerpt)
Yes, smiling frequently in order to sway the New York City civilian jury that is generally leftist, multicultural, politically correct, pro-Islam and often outright anti-Christian and anti-American. No wonder the guy almost got off. No wonder terrorists and their allies would love to have trials in New York, where the Ground Zero mosque is being ushered into existence by a compliant population, including the mayor. The Times continued:
‘They said the evidence showed that (Ghailani) helped to buy the Nissan Atlas truck that was used to carry the bomb, and gas tanks that were placed inside the truck to intensify the blast. He also stored an explosive detonator in an armoire he used, and his cellphone became the “operational phone” for the plotters before the attacks, prosecutors contended.
The attacks, orchestrated by Al Qaeda, killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injured thousands of others. (end of excerpt)
Yes, those wonderful civilian courts… So effective. And look at this paragraph from the Times summarizing the trial:
On Monday, the prospect of a deadlock was raised when a juror asked to be removed because she was alone in her view of the case and felt she was being attacked by other jurors. (end of excerpt)
Although we can’t say for sure, that sounds an awfully lot like a juror was threatened and pressured because she did not want to go along with the acquittal mindset of the rest of the politically-correct New York jury.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can read excerpts from my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.