The Political Fish

Scott Fenstermaker.

This guy showed himself to be a real treat in his interview with Bill O’reilly. Now, I am by no means O’Reilly’s biggest fan, but I appreciate this interview because as Mr. Fenstermaker continuously refused to give actual answers to any questions, O’Reilly challenged him on every one of them, and called it what it was.

I realize someone has to represent the 9/11 terrorists, since our less than brilliant AG Eric Holder has decided to try them in civilian court with full Constitutional rights, that he will undoubtedly violate, but this guy is a special type of trial lawyer.  It almost appears that he has no soul whatsoever…but I cannot make that statement definitively.

As a little bit of a sidebar note…this man is a trial lawyer. Our government is made up by a vast majority of trial lawyers. Sadly, it seems that these days they are both cut from the same mold.

He wants a show trial. The terrorists want a show trial. It’s pretty clear that the administration and Department of Justice want a show trial. They are going to get just that, and America will be worse because of it.

Senator Lindsey Graham injected *gasp* common sense into the political debate today. I have been pretty rough on Senator Graham on this blog, but will defintetely throw him a bone today after his questioning of Attorney General Eric Holder today in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Check out this video, its classic stuff. AG Holder one might think would have been prepared with an answer for this sort of question, but as you can see this administration is not operating under any sort of logic. Strictly ideology.

Enjoy.

Partial transcript via Newsbusters.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made –

GRAHAM: We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.

HOLDER: Well, I think –

GRAHAM: The Ghailani case — he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn’t object to it going into federal court. But I’m telling you right now. We’re making history and we’re making bad history. And let me tell you why.

Now, the real focus of this NPR piece was Graham’s subsequent question concerning whether or not U.S. officials would have to Mirandize Osama bin Laden if he was captured:

GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

HOLDER: Well, we’d go through our protocol. And we’d make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]

GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again I’m not — that all depends. I mean, the notion that we –

GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you’re going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over — to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence — for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you’re confusing the people fighting this war.

 

I guess according to Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) this would make Mr. Obama Un-American.

This video is from 2006, long before President Obama was able to play politics with our national security from the big chair in the Oval office. I guess now that he is in charge, we can go ahead and put politics and political theatre ahead of the security of our nation.

Anyone ever consider KSM walking free on a technicality? Washington Times editorialized this scenario here…but if you prefer my own words, here is my rant on my facebook page earlier today.

Obama has chosen the Southern District of NY to put the Bush admin, the CIA, the use of waterboarding, and the entire idea of terrorism on trial. At the same time, he will bestow upon terrorists the rights of American citizens, and just for good measure, a forum for Muslim terrorists to explain to the world why America must be destroyed. After they are convicted, the Obama trial should begin in the same courtroom.

Our national security will be compromised, as undoubtedly the methods of capture and intelligence will also be put on trial. Lower Manhatten will be given a huge flashing neon target for any and every terrorist around the world to take aim at. This is quite possibly one of the worst decisions I have ever seen made by a President, who by showing a lack of judgement, discernment and wisdom should be promptly removed from office. He has shown himself unfit for leadership, and cannot seem to grasp the idea that we are a nation at war.

Case in point…Afghanistan. Nuff said.

 

This at least according to Congressional dirtbag Jim Moran, the esteemed Representative from Virginia.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has strong words for the Republicans opposing Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to bring five 9/11 suspects to New York City to face trial.

“They see this as an opportunity to demagogue,” he said. “They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they’ll even take a stand that’s un-American.”

Shortly after the Department of Justice decided to bestow Constitutional rights of American citizens on terrorists, CNN took a poll that asked the question of whether everyday Americans agreed with the decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Muhammed in NYC. Not surprisingly, 64% of Americans believed that this trial should never take place in civilian court, in fact it belonged in a military court.

Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll. …

The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

“The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

Congratulations Jim Moran. Apparently 2/3 of your country are un-American by your borderline retarded logic.

During the daily State Department briefing yesterday,  Assistant Secretary of State Phillip J. Crowley took political correctness (aka weakness when you are in a war) to a new level altogether. From Human events:

During the daily State Department briefing, the Assistant Secretary of State unveiled the new terminology (Video here at 24:10 minutes):

REPORTER QUESTION:  Talk to us a little bit about response and talks and any commitments that you may have gotten from our European and other friends in the international community about taking in   Guantanamo detainees as the camp in Guantanamo   is expected to close at some point in the near future.  Have you gotten any commitments from our European friends and anybody else?
 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHILIP J. CROWLEY:  Ambassador Dan Fried continues his efforts to resettle, you know, Guantanamo refugees to various places around the world.

 

Resettling refugees?? Seriously? Last I had heard, a refugee was something of a victim. One with no where to go in the midst of war, chaos, famine or other devastating disaster.

Refugee camp??

The 9/10 mindset of this administration marches forward. They cannot even admit that we are still engaged (maybe because the President himself refuses to be engaged personally) in a war on terrorism, and now we refer to terrorists themselves as victims? This all happening of course while the administration cannot figure out how to handle their thoughtless, hasty decision on closing Guantanamo Bay. They keep throwing the idea around of throwing these helpless refugees into civilian courts with a brand new set of rules, highlighting the pre-9/11 mindset of terrorism being a law enforcement issue, and not a military issue. It is frighteningly inept and naive to think that way.

It is sad to see the highest levels of our government completely take cover and hide from even using words that may offend. When it comes to the safety of America, wouldn’t one consider America first in these type of situations. Why would we throw out words that would garner sympathy around the world for the prisoners and terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay Cuba? They are the worst of the worst (umm, hello Khalid Sheik Mohammed) and do not deserve the sympathies of decent people anywhere. They aim to kill. They aim to kill Americans. Sadly the American government is to weak-minded to say just that.

The pre-9/11 mindset was one that denied the evil of terrorism. They were not acts of terrorism, they were criminal acts. Normal law enforcement would be tasked to deal with these type of things. The wall of separation between these law enforcement agencies as well as the national security agencies in part led to the massive intelligence failure, resulting in September 11, 2001.

As I have written in this blog before, we have returned to that mindset, to the detriment of our national security interests abroad, and the safety of our citizens at home.

Without much fanfare or any MSM coverage, President Obama has ordered the FBI to issue Miranda warnings to captured fighters on the battlefields of Aghanistan. The Weekly Standard is reporting that this edict has taken place, according to a senior Republican on the House Intelligence commitee. What’s that phrase again, if you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it? For those who are not familiar with Miranda, my first question is where have you been? Have you never seen Law and Order? Secondly, Miranda Rights are the offshoot of a SCOTUS decision in 1966 which required law enforcement to remind American citizens suspected of a crime of their rights within the law. It is as follows: ” You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at government expense” Yes, the FBI will be telling these prisoners that their first right is to remain silent. Are we no longer interested in gathering intelligence that could prevent another attack, be it on the battlefield or terrorist attack at home? And then, yes we will be informing them of their right (and need) to have an attorney present. Not only that, when Mr. Extremist reaches into his pockets and finds out he is broke, we will retain that attorney for him, at the expense of the men and women he was just trying to kill. This is easily one of the most flawed policies I have ever come across in my lifetime.

Play out that scenario if/when Osama Bin Laden gets captured. Take the time in your own mind to let that one simmer. That is the order given to the FBI from our President. When will this man start to show a concern for the safety and security of this nation, and not the safety and security of those men who try to kill our soldiers? I don’t care if they are Muslim extremists, the German SS, or the British redcoats, this is an insane policy. Miranda is a right granted to U.S. citizens. These Muslim extremists are NOT common criminals and are not US citizens. Do we as a country need to sell out our security in an attempt to reach out to moderate Muslims?? The bottom line is that radical extremism will not go away if you reach out to moderates. Granting Muslim extremists the rights and priveledges of the U.S. judicial system to appease the moderate Muslim majority is flawed to say the least.

Other than the obvious issues stated above, where was Congress when all of this was going on? Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a check on power in Washington, and the Department of Justice and the FBI fall under the supervision of the Congress, and not ONLY the President.  The ranking member of the House Intelligence Commitee, Peter Hoekstra (R)-MI said today “When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent, It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”

Mr. Hoekstra, I am ashamed to inform you that common sense and good logic are apparently no longer used on the Hill and in the White House. It’s appeasement at all cost. It seems the American citizens are the only ones eating these costs here recently.

2012 is coming soon. 2010…even sooner.