Gay Patriot Header Image

The Coming 9/11 Show Trials

It is quite possible that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may go free after masterminding the 9/11 attacks.  Why?  Because AG Holder’s decision to move KSM and the other al-Qaeda suspects out of the military courts and into the civilian courts may throw a lot of evidence out the window.  This is the ACLU’s wet dream.  So from a normal court circumstance, the acquittal of KSM and the AQs could happen.  But would President Obama allow it to happen on his watch?  Probably, hopefully, not.

So why is Holder (with Obama’s nod) doing all of this?  Not so much to put the 9/11 conspirators on trial, but to put the Bush-Cheney post-9/11 war effort on trial.

Anthony Dick at The Corner puts in words what my thoughts have been since Holder’s announcement on Friday:

They talk about due process and the rule of law, but the trials can’t possibly provide anything close to the level of objectivity that applies in an ordinary criminal-law setting.  There is no way the defendants will get an impartial jury in New York, and there is no way the government will actually release the terrorists if they are acquitted.  Thus the courtroom proceedings in Manhattan will be, in a very real sense, show trials.

They are designed purely for PR purposes, so that the Obama administration can pay lip service to the ideal of due process while implicitly rebuking the Bush administration for failing to respect the rule of law.

Meanwhile, it is the Obama administration that is truly making a sham out of the rule of law, by politicizing the trial process and pretending that these enemy combatants will be getting normal, neutral, dispassionate trials, as if the larger strategic context of the War on Terror will not affect the judge, the jury, or the actions of the government, which is sure to retain custody of the defendants in the off chance they are acquitted.

This reflects the fundamental unseriousness of the Obama administration in the face of terrorism.  We saw the same thing with the foolish announcement that Gitmo would be closed by January, which was the first iteration of the administration’s fantasy-land effort to sidestep one of the core dilemmas of the post-9/11 world:  We have a significant number of detainees whom we know with operational certainty to be dangerous terrorists, but, for various reasons, we can’t prosecute or convict them according to normal procedures.   This is another way of saying that there is no way we can prosecute the War on Terror while providing the full panoply of ordinary due-process protections to enemy combatants. And no amount of hope can change this reality.

I predict that nothing good will come to America as Holder moves forward to implement his ill-advised and shallowly political decision.

RELATED:  Obama must rethink rethinking Afghanistan – LA Times

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Media’s (Severe) Palin Derangement Syndrome

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 am - November 15, 2009.
Filed under: Media Bias,PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome)

Was it on AOL or Yahoo!’s homepage where a story about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s dinner invitation to her ex-son-in-law-to-be led for (what seemed) the better part of the day?

Perhaps, I should have saved the link, but, well, the story didn’t much interest me.  (It was the media’s obsession with the father of the Republican’s grandchild whichs fascinates.)  Seems I wasn’t the only disinterested person to take notice in this story.  In his blog, Hugh MacIntyre offers:

Sarah Palin is a former public official. Any legitimacy the press may have in digging into a politicians family (which I think extends only as far as looking for corruption) surely ends when that politician no longer holds office.

That is to say, why should anyone give a flying donkey where Levi Johnston decides to eat turkey?

Why is the media so obsessed with the doings the ex-son-in-law-to-be of an ex-Governor?  Well, because of his former relation.  They just can’t let go of their obsession with Sarah Palin.  They have this “need” to reduce her to the level of tabloid trash, even if the behavior they recount is not her own.  Even as they demean this good woman and accomplished politician, writers, bloggers and editors in the MSM regular run with stories highlighting her latest comment on politics and policy.

Mark Steyn notes that AP relied on the services of writers in addition to Calvin Woodward (who got the byline) to “‘fact-check’ . . .  Palin’s new book, and in return [those] 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors.”  They are obsessed.

But, their obsession, as John Podhoretz notes is a sign of her staying power:

And a person who can make news just by opening her mouth is a person to be reckoned with, a person who is not going away, a person who is going to play a role in American politics for a long time.

Or maybe he’s reading too much into .  Maybe her ability to make news is more a function of the neuroses of those who so hate her, evidence perhaps of their own need to demonize their political adversaries or to just plain attack someone whose appeal they don’t undestand.