Friday, November 27, 2009

The Trial in New York City

*******
Congress Must Stop the Trial in New York City
The U.S. Constitution can rescue us from the Obama Administration's latest push toward "remaking America."
By Phyllis Schlafly Friday, November 27, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17279
The U.S. Constitution can rescue us from the Obama Administration’s latest push toward “remaking America.” Our Constitution is on the people’s side to stop Obama from turning the judiciary into a platform for America’s sworn enemies to spread their propaganda and even use our own laws against us.
Our Constitution’s framers foresaw the probability that power-hungry men would try to take over the judiciary. So, they gave us the tools to maintain a government based on the separation of powers.
Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has announced that he will move the trial of the confessed 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, from a military court (where he ought to be tried) to a civilian court in New York City. Even worse, Holder plans to reward this terrorist with all the constitutional rights of any ordinary U.S. citizen defendant accused of an ordinary crime.
KSM fits the statutory definition of a terrorist: an “unlawful enemy combatant” who engaged in premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets. He’s not a U.S. citizen, and he was arrested outside the United States.
Constitution gives Congress the power to override this Obama-Holder outrage
The Constitution gives Congress the power to override this Obama-Holder outrage. Congress can and should prevent this travesty, and the sooner the better.
We don’t need any 2,000 page legislation; a single sentence will suffice. “Federal District Courts shall have no jurisdiction over any case involving unlawful enemy combatants, as that term is defined in the United States Code (title 10, section 948a).”
Constitutional authority is clear. Article III, Section I, states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Nothing is new or irregular about Congress prescribing or limiting the kinds of cases that federal courts are permitted to hear. A long historical record conclusively proves that Congress has the power to regulate and limit court jurisdiction, that Congress has used this power repeatedly, and that the courts have accepted it.
The great Chief Justice John Marshall asserted in an 1807 Supreme Court case that “courts which are created by written law, and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law, cannot transcend that jurisdiction.”
In 2002, for example, Congress passed a law (at Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s urging) to prohibit federal courts from hearing cases about brush clearing in his home state of South Dakota. Pending environmental lawsuits were immediately halted, and a court order that was already issued became null and void.
There are many bad consequences to staging the trial of KSM in New York City. If he is given all civilian constitutional rights, the government will be required to turn over to him vast amounts of U.S. intelligence and information that will imperil national security and put us in danger of future acts of terrorism.
The chief issue in the trial could become waterboarding rather than the 9/11 terrorist act that killed some 3,000 people. The Obama Administration is infested with transnationalists, i.e., lawyers who want to integrate foreign law or so-called international law into U.S. domestic law and impose it on Americans.
We wonder if the real purpose of moving this trial to New York is to put the George W. Bush Administration on trial in a foreign court, as the far Left has been demanding. The dangerous publicity and classified information emanating from the trial could give the opportunity to anti-Bush lawyers to take some of this material to the International Criminal Court (to which the United States does not even belong) or some other foreign court (such as Spain, which illegally tried Pinochet of Chile) and urge a trial against George W. Bush for war crimes.
Before Eric Holder became Attorney General, he and other Justice Department lawyers were in law firms that represented detainees at Guantanamo. Those lawyers should all be disqualified; they shouldn’t have ever been hired by the Justice Department.
The trial of KSM would be a media circus for many months, much like the O.J. Simpson trial, only ten times as compelling. Defense lawyers will be eager to display their histrionics modeled on Johnnie Cochran’s famous argument, “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!”
What if KSM is acquitted? And released onto the streets of New York? Holder was pathetic in defending his New York decision at a congressional hearing, even assuring the Congressmen that KSM would not be acquitted. Is Holder planning a show trial where the verdict is planned in advance?
Congress should act promptly to stop this dangerous move of KSM’s trial from a military court to a federal court in New York. The Democratic Congress is loath to overrule Obama, but the longer this outrage festers in the public consciousness, the more it will damage the Obama Administration.
*******
How Many Lies Is Enough?
Obama’s and Holder’s statements have already prejudiced the jury pool and could cause the trial to end in a mistrial
By JR Dieckmann Wednesday, November 25, 2009
“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” - Barack Obama
When questioned later on being judge, jury and executioner, he clarified, “What I said was, people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging, I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury. What I’m absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism.”
What I said was…? No it wasn’t. Both Obama and Holder have been guaranteeing a guilty verdict in this trial since the decision was made to try them in New York. And somehow, this is supposed to convince our enemies how fair our court system is? Or is it intended simply to convince the American people that the New York Five will be convicted - without any real substance to the claim - a propaganda attempt to make us feel comfortable with civilian trials of foreign terrorists in the U.S.?
Obama’s and Holder’s statements have already prejudiced the jury pool and could cause the trial to end in a mistrial. Under the law, the government would then be compelled to release KSM and the other four terrorists on American soil. Their very statements alone assure that a “fair trial” would be impossible.
Holder assures us of “a successful outcome.” What does he mean by “a successful outcome?” That there will be a conviction, or simply that the trial will ultimately conclude with a verdict? To most of us, we take it to mean that there will be a conviction. But what does that say to the Muslim world that Obama is trying to impress with his show trial? It doesn’t make any sense, unless you consider the national security intelligence and CIA methods that will be exposed by the trial. Now, if you want to destroy the U.S. national security and intelligence community, this might be a way to do it. What then? No place else to go for defense but to the U.N. and the global government - favored by the Obama.
Every time the Obama is challenged on something he said, he says “As I said before…” or “What I said was…,” or “As I’ve said repeatedly…,” or As I’ve consistently said…,” and then he says something completely different and contradictory to his previous statements. If he is so adept at remembering what he said before, then why can’t he remember a speech without use of a teleprompter? Most of those speeches are just the same old rhetoric that he has said many times before with the same old lies in every other sentence. “What I said was…” is simply another Obama lie.
Double-dip recession
“I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.” - The Obama
I think it more likely that people are losing confidence in this Obama-run government, if they ever had any to begin with. This statement from Obama represents perhaps the most hypocritical things ever heard by the American people. If Obama is so concerned about adding to the debt, then why does he keep doing it?
And to compound the lie, he adds this:
“I intend to take serious steps to reduce America’s long-term deficit because debt-driven growth cannot fuel America’s long-term prosperity.”
Neither can government programs and handouts. Government creates no wealth, it merely spends it. With the spending spree the Obama is ramming through congress and cramming down our throats, the national debt is about to surpass the nation’s GDP. So what happens when your debts become greater than your assets? You end up like GM and Chrysler - bankrupt. The country will be sold to the highest bidder, just as it is now being sold off to Red China.
When the Obama refuses to reduce spending, then says he intends to “take serious steps to reduce America’s long-term deficit,” there is only one possible conclusion: raise taxes, or borrow more money and apply the budget deficit to the national debt.
When you raise taxes, you kill any economic recovery that may or may not be taking place. Borrowing money from China to pay for the deficit is destroying the nation’s credit with a national debt that is nearly impossible to pay off. Just the interest payments alone are enough to keep us broke for decades to come. And how are we handling those interest payments? Paying them with borrowed money, or just letting them add more to the debt? Our credit is just about maxed out.
According to The Tax Foundation, to offset deficits, “Federal income tax rates would have to be nearly tripled across the income spectrum,” with the lowest bracket at 27 percent and the highest at 95%. “Even the CBO estimates that rates would have to exceed 80 percent, and that’s before state and local taxes,” says the Patriot Post. I assume they mean for generations to come.
Cloward-Piven
But Obama isn’t concerned with that, in fact, it’s exactly what he wants. Break the bank and redistribute the wealth to those who no longer have any income after the economy has collapsed and the country finds itself in a deep depression - taking much of the free world down with it. That is the Cloward-Piven strategy for the destruction of capitalism and the free market.
“The Cloward-Piven strategy - first proposed in 1966 - seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”
This is intended to result in what the left calls a Marxist utopia and is the goal of George Soros, ACORN & affiliates, and others associated with the Obama.
How can any reasonable person believe that wealth can be created from government handouts? What happens when the handouts run out and no wealth has been created by a company? Obviously it cannot remain in business as the overhead exceeds the revenue. Wealth can only be created by entrepreneurship and passed down to employees.
But perhaps the most obscene lie is the concept of “trickle up prosperity.” You take money from the job creators and give it to the poor, who then go out and spend it to generate business for the job creators. Then you just take it away again and give it back to the poor. Where is the wealth creation? This is not wealth creation, it is socialist redistribution of wealth.
The Obama learned it well from the radicals and Marxist professors he sought out during his college years. So have the people he now employs in the White House staff.
Obama is a chronic liar
The Obama is a chronic liar. He lies nearly every time he opens his mouth in front of a camera. I have only discussed just a few from the past week in this article. He also tells us that he is trying to save the economy while in reality, he is trying his best to destroy it by stealth before he can be removed from office, and he continues to blame it all on George Bush - who does share some of the blame - perhaps 10% of it. Remember when our presidents were honorable men?
Did I say “removed from office?” On what grounds? Maybe violating his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, abusing the office of president and the taxpayers, treason against the American people, ignoring his duties while running around doing photo ops and speeches, betraying our troops fighting overseas, usurping powers from the legislative branch while expanding executive powers beyond constitutional limits, interfering with the courts, just for starters?
And oh yes, WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
*******
The Trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed

But what if it does...
By Neill Arnhart Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I am.
Maybe the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York won’t paint a big bulls-eye on the city that Al Qaeda hates the most.
But, what if it does?
Maybe in won’t occur to any Jihadists that KSM would love to be a martyr (whether KSM feels that way or not), and so they use truck bombs or some other type of destructive device to make a statement.
But, what if it does?
Maybe KSM’s lawyers won’t make KSM into a victim who was traumatized by the mean old USA, thereby whipping up support for Jihadist causes all over the world.
But, what it they do?
Maybe this trial won’t expose even more US secrets to Al Qaeda and other terror networks, thereby giving them better ways to prepare to fight us.
But, what if it does?
Maybe this trial won’t become a media circus worse that OJ, making a mockery of our judicial system.
But what if it does?
Maybe this trial won’t become a rallying cry for terror networks the world over.
But with if it does?
Maybe this trial won’t further emasculate the CIA.
But what if it does?
Maybe this trial won’t become a platform for KSM and others to spew out anti American sentiments in open court.
But what if it does?
If security is too tight for jihadists to blow up the court building, maybe they won’t take it out on other cities, or embassies, or other US interests overseas.
But what if they do?
And horror of horrors, what if KSM is somehow acquitted on a technicality, and is allowed to go free.
What then?
If even one of these things happen, will it have been worth it to make a political statement by putting KSM on trial in New York City.
Is it that important to show the world that an enemy combatant captured overseas by the military is granted the same right as a US citizen who was apprehended by the police?
Being a non uniformed combatant, he is not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.
Modern laws of war regarding conduct during war, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, provide that it is unlawful for belligerents to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance.
Modern laws of war also say that the deliberate harming of noncombatants (as opposed to the unintentional harming of noncombatants due to the fact of belligerents hiding behind human shields) is a war crime.
The Geneva Convention specifically spells out that parties who do not adhere to the convention will not be protected by it.
Remember Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg?
I know that someone out there is thinking, that since we water boarded KSM, that our guys cannot expect Geneva Convention protection if captured. But with this foe, our guys never had that Geneva Convention protection in the first place.
Pouring a little water up someone’s nose, in a controlled environment, with medical personnel on hand to make sure that nothing goes wrong, is not the same thing as what they do to our guys. They saw heads off with rusty blades, while the victim is alive and aware. They flay the skin off of soldiers, and civilians. They burn soldiers and civilians eyes out with cigarettes. They draw and quarter our guys, and drag their body parts through town square.
There are fraternity hazing rituals that are more dangerous and more uncomfortable than what we did to three of their guys.
I say, anyone who uses the word “torture” in connection with water boarding (the way we do it, not the way they do it), without clarifying the difference between what we do and REAL torture, is someone who just wants the US to fail in our quest to rid the world of terrorism.
The health care reforms taken that the President is trying to undertake may or may not be his Waterloo, but, if even ONE of the things I started this essay out with happens, this trial will the end of his political career, and maybe even the end of his party as he knows it.
President Obama, you are giving the terrorist exactly what they want. A global stage in the heart of New York from which to articulate their perceived grievances.
Why in the world would you want to do them a favor like that?
That’s the way I see it.
*******