Justifiable Anger

Yesterday was my first day back at work following an extended weekend spent house-hunting in the Charleston, SC area. While I spent little time over the past five days or so in front of a television or computer, it was difficult to escape the news of Attorney Gen. Eric Holder’s decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to New York City for criminal trial in federal court. In fact, it was one of the few things I actually had the chance to write about here at America’s Right while I was out of town.

The practical reality of Holder’s decision didn’t quite hit me completely, however, until yesterday afternoon when in the course of my daily schedule as a legal writer I found myself thinking of KSM and the other 9/11 co-conspirators as I walked into the federal courthouse here in Philadelphia.

Of course, my own outrage at the Justice Department’s decision–which Holder testified today was made independently of the president (anyone believe him?)–has hovered around the security threat brought upon New York City, the disconnect between Holder and those devastated by the 9/11 attacks, and the overall indication that this administration is ignorant with regard to the threat from radical Islam and seems to have trouble discerning good from evil in general, but walking into the courthouse yesterday afternoon brought things down to a personal level.

What if it were the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and not the Southern District of New York in which the Justice Department deemed it appropriate to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his murderous cohorts? What if it were my building? Would I really want to go to work each day in the global epicenter of the international conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terror?

On Tuesday, Arizona Congressman John Shadegg felt it necessary to apologize for comments he made Monday night while addressing, on the House floor, security concerns in the Big Apple as a result of such a trial in Manhattan.

“Well, mayor,” Shadegg said, addressing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg rhetorically, “how are you going to feel when it is your daughter that is kidnapped at school by a terrorist?”

As a father of a young daughter, my goodness — Shadegg’s statement hits right square in the gut. Thinking about my daughter’s life in jeopardy makes my stomach turn, causes my blood pressure to perceptibly rise, and brings tears to my eyes. It’s a horrible thing to endure the loss of a child, and terrible to even consider it, especially when put into the context of something as senseless as a terrorist attack. Yet I don’t believe that Shadegg should have apologized, and I absolutely applaud him for standing fast when it came to reminding us of the threat that is radical Islam in the course of doing so.

The fact is, my gut wrenches when I think of what happened at Comintern Street School Number One on September 1, 2004 when nearly 800 children were taken hostage by Muslim terrorists. One hundred and eighty-six children were murdered that day in what has come to be known as the Beslan school massacre.

Think about that for a moment. Think about that, and then consider that the New York City Department of Education comprises the largest system of schools in the United States of America so hated by radical Muslims the world over. Think about the more than one million children attending public school in the New York City area that will be unnecessarily put at risk by an unfathomable and unforgivable decision based completely on politics and an ideological bent completely incapable of drawing the line between right and wrong and good and evil.

Was John Shadegg so wrong to try, desperately and for the sake of those 1.1 million schoolchildren in the more than 1,600 area schools, to get through the thick skull of Michael Bloomberg? Was he really? I don’t think so. Not at all.

Furthermore, I cannot help but wonder out loud whether Bloomberg would have offered the same support for the Justice Department decision should it have come prior to his re-election at the beginning of this month. My guess is that Bloomberg would have employed common sense and done what so many New York City area first responders are doing — protest Holder’s disgustingly expansive disconnect with reality.

On that front, it should be noted that Attorney Gen. Eric Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 terrorist detainees, sworn enemies of America, in connection with lawsuits brought against the American government and American people. During 2007 alone, Covington & Burling contributed more than three-thousand hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to radical Islamic jihadists captured in the act of plotting or carrying out attacks against Americans. As one conservative law school acquaintance of mine says: “Meet your Attorney General, America.”

Now, in an effort surely intended to engender warm feelings from our enemies across the globe, and in an attempt to show that this post-George W. Bush America has embarked on a new path toward human rights for all, and constitutional rights for everyone, the Obama Justice Department is risking the chance that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his cohorts will be acquitted on a procedural or evidentiary technicality, and that KSM’s supports in the caves and spiderholes back home will glean invaluable information about American intelligence operations and other measures from materials made available for trial.

Sure, President Obama and Attorney General Holder insist that neither will happen, but their track record for honesty is about as thin as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s tendency for compassion. The fact is, information leaked during previous such trials following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing led to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Furthermore, the stronger and more vigorously Obama and Holder maintain that KSM, et al. will be tried, found guilty and executed, the more the enemies this administration holds in such high esteem will characterize this trial as a complete sham. And in that, they will be right. On oh-so-many levels.

Congressman Shadegg was absolutely right to be outraged. After all, it was he and other House Republicans who authored the Democrat-spurned Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, which would ensure that Guantanamo Bay detainees would remain off American soil and out of the American court system. And, the fact remains that the facility in Cuba was designed for this specific purpose, and since 2002 has held in more than acceptable conditions some of the world’s most dangerous radical Islamic jihadists, including but certainly not limited to those who assisted in planning and facilitating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was President Obama who, in January, signed an executive order to close the detention facility without his promised plan for dealing with the detainees, and it is President Obama from whom, ten months later, the American people are still waiting to hear a plan.

It has been in the face of clear, unambiguous opposition from the American people that the president continues his push to transfer jihadists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to U.S. soil, and now his administration is working overtime to ignore the will of the people and pave the way for those terrorists to have access to our American legal system, where they will look to and possibly succeed in manipulating, for their own use, the rights provided by the very Constitution which protects and preserves the rights of those people they would murder in a minute if given the chance.

According to reports from the Washington Post and other outlets, one out of every seven Guantanamo Bay detainees deemed “safe” and released from custody by this administration and the previous one have returned to the battlefield. Some have taken American lives once again.

When President Obama took his Oath of Office, he swore to protect and defend the United States Constitution. How does this accomplish that goal? How does this make America any more safe? How does this make New York City any less of a target? How does this project strength from America as we fight against radical Islam?

In short, it doesn’t. Congressman Shadegg understands this, while Mayor Bloomberg does not. The thing is, I get the feeling that Eric Holder and Barack Obama understand it as well — they just don’t care.

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Jeff,
    This seems very strange at many levels I have no legal training but after POTUS and the ATG both state they they have no doubts that this guy well be found guilty and put to death should his lawyer not protest and seek to have the trial moved. And where are the going to find a jury that would not be influenced by what the accused has done. If the POTUS and ATG are right why have a trail, isnt it just show? Of course the next thing is lawyer well do is have every thing said after waterboarding removed then what is left?
    Just shoot him now!
    R.B. Deal MCPO USN (Ret.)

  2. Anonymous says:

    But Jeff, this will be such an economic BOOM to NY, as the dimwits say….isn't it sad that the only way they can stimulate the economy is by bringing terrorists to NY or to IL? I believe, as do others, that the real motive behind all this is to destroy the CIA and bring more adverse publicity to the Bush Administration. Their naive blubbering about 'restoring our image in the world' is more BS…I actually heard a clip of Obama responding to a reporter's question about what he thought all his traveling around the world has accomplished…he said HE had restored the reputation and image of America in the world!!! God help us!

  3. Boston Blackie says:

    Jeff, I have always been suspicious of Holder but your info about his law firm is SHOCKING. Why isn't he made to recuse himself. This trial is the WH's way to put the previous administration on trial. Mark my words, these terrorists will ask to represent themselves to get access to the government's info including classified. Then some liberal judge will throw out the evidence because the way it was obtained. What happens then when they try to keep them in custody and are ordered by the courts to release them.

  4. Pat in NC says:

    Who wants to be a juror or judge and put their families at risk? Does a jury of peers demand Americans of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds? Will jurors be found that have no opinion on 9/11? Even with the heightened security is it impossible for some suicide terrorist to show up outside the court or at the court door? As NYC diverts large numbers of security to the area of the court, will security in other areas be diminished?
    We have already paid to build the secured court at Gitmo and now we should use an additional 750 million to provide security in NYC. Our courts are supposedly so busy that it is difficult get cases scheduled but we can tie up a Federal Court with terrorism cases and deny speedy trials to citizens.
    There is absolutely no sense that can be found in this decision except that it demonstrates the administration's total disregard for the American citizens.

  5. bigalber says:

    Follow the money!

    Holders former (?) law firm represented some of these killers. So when the circus starts, who will be the lawyers, and who will pay them, and how much will they be paid? Could it be that Holder's buddies get some, or a lot, of the action here, like our tax dollars.

    The Military Tribunals wouldbe quite inexpensive compared to the unfolding fiasco in New York.

    So what happens when a lawyer claims a fiar trial in NYC is not possible, and seeks a change in venue? And when dealing with non-US Citizens Islamic terrorists, who can be a "jury of their peers". Would that exclude Jews and Christians?

    And what about presumption of innocence, which is basic to out criminal justice system? Obama and Holder have both declared publically KSM, et al are guilty, and will be convicted and executed.

    So the jury pool is not prejudiced by these public statements.

    This all stinks, like everything this administration and the radical left has touched.

  6. Boston Blackie says:

    By the way, Bloomberg's response does not surprise me. He is not even a RINO. He was always a democrat until he decided to run for mayor in 2002 after Guiliani had to step down due to term limits. Since there was no republican running, he changed party affiliation to get through the primary unopposed then used his wealth in the general election. Now he has changed the law so that there is no term limits. He still thinks and acts like the democRAT he really is so of course he will support the WH's decision. Oh wait, I'm sorry, the WH had no part in this decision. That's their story and they are sticking to it so when the case blows up in their face they will have Holder to throw under the bus.

  7. Ima SoBelle says:

    Am I wrong in thinking that NY State no longer has the death penalty? I did a bit of research and found that in 2004 the NY State death penalty law was overturned on a technicality and that their legislature has not "fixed " it so that it would be legal and could be reinstated. If that is true, how can the government ask for the death penalty if the trial is held there?

    Any time Obama and his cohorts say "don't worry," it is time to run the other way.

    Is there no recourse for all of the atrocities committed by this administration against this country and the American people? By the time 2010 rolls around (never mind 2012) there might not be much left to save.

  8. Anonymous says:

    and the name of such disasters are called ACTS OF TERRORISM

Speak Your Mind

*