Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (333981)	11/14/2009 6:50:39 AM
From: Tom Clarke	9 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794048

The Worst Decision By A US President In History 2009 November 13 by David Horowitz The Obama administration has taken a giant step in its march to throw in the towel in the war against radical Islam. On FoxNews this morning, Peter King said of the decision to try the soldiers of al-Qaeda — who by their own account have no country but their cause — as civilians “may be the worst decision by a U.S. president in history.” It certainly is. It sends a signal to terrorists everywhere to attack civilians. 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. (BTW, The newly appointed lawyer for the president is the husband of Obama’s recently departed Maoist communications director Anita Dunn.) Finally, this move continues and enlarges the refusal of the President and the American Left to recognize that: 1. We are in a war that has been declared on us — in which we, in other words, are the victims. 2. That the war is conducted by religious armies whose war is inspired by their reading of the Koran. 3. That the number of Muslims who support their war plan is in the tens of millions 4. That they are aided and abetted by many Islamic governments and by the international Left. From the comments: To expand on this point, this decision is nothing less than a GIFT to the American Left. It allows Obama to claim that Eric Holder made this decision and he had nothing to do with it. Less politically-astute Americans might buy this pathetic lie, but anyone with an understanding of Obama’s Alinskyite agenda can it for what it is. One must ask whether Obama is actually so thoroughly a creature of the Left that he doesn’t understand the ramifications, or rather (as I would argue) he understands them precisely and simply DOES NOT CARE. I am becoming more convinced with every passing day that this President is working not only to actively undermine our economy, but to dismantle the constitutional foundation upon which our nation is built. Obama clearly regards many of our nation’s founding principles with disdain, and intends to go about the business of “fundamentally transforming” the country. This is becoming increasingly evident with every policy decision he makes. Unfortunately we have an large group of voters who are quite willing to judge politicians by their words, and without regard to their actions. newsrealblog.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (333981)	11/14/2009 10:13:01 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794048

Its very likely there's no legally admissable (under our criminal justice system) evidence against KSM. His confession came after "torture". So logically the case should be thrown out and KSM freed in the US. If that doesn't happen, will they be setting a precedent that confessions derived by "torture" are admissable in the US criminal justice system? If the charges against KSM are dismissed and the Obama administration decides to keep him imprisoned anyway, won't they be destroying the claim they're different than the Bush administration in pursuing national security in a "legal" manner?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (333981)	11/14/2009 2:28:24 PM
From: KLP	2 Recommendations Respond to of 794048

"Fury" UKTimes gets "it", but ours doesn't~~ Fury at plan to try September 11 mastermind near Ground Zero From The Times November 14, 2009 timesonline.co.uk Tim Reid in Washington The self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 terror attacks and four alleged co-conspirators are to be moved from Guantánamo Bay and tried in a civilian court in New York. The move was denounced angrily yesterday by victims’ relatives and Republicans on Capitol Hill. The extraordinary announcement of the trial was made by Eric Holder, the Attorney-General, who said that he would seek the death penalty for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others when they face prosecution in a court in lower Manhattan. The court sits a few blocks from where the twin towers collapsed after the 2001 attack and where nearly 3,000 people died. The trial will prove to be an enormous legal, political and popular test of President Obama’s methods of dealing with terrorism. The cases will be beset by evidence problems, not least because Mohammed was tortured by the CIA soon after his capture in Pakistan. He was subjected to simulated drowning (waterboarding) 183 times in March 2003, making any evidence obtained from him then, and since, almost definitely inadmissible. Mr Holder said that he would not be bringing the prosecutions unless he thought the outcome would be successful. He added that he had seen evidence not in the public domain that bolstered such confidence. He said that the men would be charged with masterminding and carrying out the September 11 attacks and “I fully expect to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty”. Yet trials are unpredictable, and Mr Holder did not address what would happen to Mohammed if he was acquitted and presumably allowed, under US law, to walk free. Mohammed has also claimed to have beheaded the Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl and to have been responsible for many other terror attacks. The trial move is part of Mr Obama’s effort to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, which Mr Holder conceded was unlikely to be shut before the President’s self-imposed deadline of January 22 next year. Shortly before Mr Holder appeared before the cameras Greg Craig, Mr Obama’s White House counsel, who had been leading the effort to close Guantánamo, resigned. His resignation letter did not mention the facility in Cuba but there has been a concerted whispering campaign against him in Washington over the failure to shut the jail. Some families of the September 11 victims called the decision to try the plotters in a civilian US court a terrible mistake. Other victims’ relatives said that the trial would give the men a platform to “spew” their antiAmerican hatred and invective. Ed Kowalski, of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America Foundation, said: “To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having US constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and it’s never been done before. President Obama is wrong to do this.” The President’s political opponents, who are opposed vehemently to moving any Guantánamo detainees on to US soil, let alone the mastermind of the worst crime in US history, decried the move. John Cornyn, a Republican Texas senator, said that treating the alleged plotters like ordinary criminals was unconscionable. John Kyl, a Senate colleague, said that the Obama Administration was “more concerned about extending legal protection to terrorists than security protection to Americans”. Peter King, a New York congressman, said the trial would make the city more of a terrorist target. Mr Holder said New York was no stranger to big terror trials. He pointed to the trial and conviction in the same court of Ramzi Yousef, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed’s nephew, for the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993. Mohammed and the four others — Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz — are accused of orchestrating the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Centre and killed 2,973 people in New York on September 11, 2001. Mr Holder said that five other Guantánamo detainees, accused of organising the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole warship in Yemen in 2000, which killed 17 sailors, would be tried by military tribunal. They would not be prosecuted in civilian court, like Mohammed, in part because their target was a military one, Mr Holder said. It will be some time before Mohammed and the others will be transferred to New York. Under a recently passed law in Congress, the Obama Administration must give 45 days notice before bringing a detainee on to US soil. The charges must also be filed. The men will be prosecuted by federal lawyers with the Southern District of New York based in lower Manhattan and the Eastern District of Virginias. They have convicted the 1993 World Trade Centre bombers, those responsible for the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged “20th 9/11 hijacker”.