Banner ad

Friday, January 29, 2010

The White House partially surrenders, but it's not enough

President Obama has ordered the Justice Department to find some place other than New York City to hold the trial of KSM and the other 9/11 conspirators.
The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.

The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would "prefer that they did it elsewhere" and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

"It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that's too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood," Bloomberg told reporters.

"There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City."

State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was "pleased" that the administration is reconsidering the location of the trial.

Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke "with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives," said the senator's spokesman, Josh Vlasto.
While this is a victory for New York City and a triumph of common sense over lunacy, the original problem still remains. They are still determined to try the terrorists in civilian courts. It is only the venue that they are changing.
The order to consider new venues does not change the White House's position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.

"President Obama is still committed to trying Mohammed and four other terrorist detainees in federal court," spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday.
So some other lucky community will get the fun of hosting the trial. I wonder if they'll consult with the police commissioner and mayor ahead of time before making this choice.

It's good that Obama could recognize that he needed to change his policy after even members of his own party such as Feinstein and Schumer were calling for an end to the idea of trying them in New York City. But why would any other location be any better? It is the policy that should be changed, not just the venue.


tfhr said...

Different venue but still no change in the practice of trying terrorists in a civil court. This leaves a huge problem for the Intelligence Community which must contemplate the problems that will arise when KSM's lawyers seek access to classified information, as is their right, when they seek to exam all evidence against their "client".

It is easy to see the problems inherent in disclosure of classified information. We've already heard that there were instances of compromised classified information in the case of the first WTC attackers (1993 bombing). The show trials for 9-11 holds even greater potential for damage when current and future sources of intelligence essential to our national security must weigh the risk that they will be compromised in celebrated court cases.

The solution seems simple but for some reason continues to evade us. We are at war. Osama bin Laden declared that al Qaeda is at war with America. If you are al Qaeda and you become a captive, you stay in prison until the war is over. Giving illegal combatants this much is far more generous than the laws of war prescribe. Doing less for America makes us more vulnerable.

mark said...

Thank God: With the trials moved from NYC, we can once again again allow 9/11 continue "fading" from our memory, as Charles Krauthammer recently pleaded.
While I was baffled by Obama's decision to hold the trials there, it was sad to see the continued wimpification of our country by so many.
The same people who whine that the trial would have been a victory for Al Queda were silent (or even defended) Bush when he said he was no longer "worried" about OBL. Every time the man most responsible for 9/11 releases a tape, it is a victory fo Al Queda owed to the cowardice and incompetence of GWB (but he couldn't have done it without your support). Even assuming he's lying about responsiblity for the Christmas bombing, the fact that OBL is still around to claim it as his work should shame anyone here from accusing Obama of being soft on terrorists.

tfhr said...


I don't know why you insist on misrepresenting Krauthammer. I guess since he's the one that identified and named "Bush Derangement Syndrome", you have some special need to heap insults upon him.

You seem to think these tape recorded messages attributed to bin Laden are "victories" for al Qaeda but then wouldn't a years long show trial in NYC be counter-productive for the United States if we applied your assessment?

Think about that, mark.

And for God's sake, get some help before this BDS thing eats you up alive.

mark said...

Your tactics have become old, tfhr. You can't defend Bush for quitting the search for OBL, so anyone who points it out must have BDS. Just as you couldn't defend his incompetence, so you pretended that all criticisms of Bush were "spitting on the troops". Yet it is you who constantly "spits" on your fellow troops. Once again, last week I gave evidence that soldiers were exposed to putrid water and open pits that have caused debilitating health problems. The proper response would be that it is outrageous that somebody put profit over the health of soldiers, and they should be rooted out, fired, and, if appropriate, face legal chargers. Your pathetic reply: Halliburton fed me well. Not sure why you think this is a witty response (you've used it on multiple occasions), but it is just evidence that, not only will you sell out your fellow soldiers, but that you'll do if for a decent ham sandwich.
As you are aware, I was one of the first to condemn Obama's handling of the Christmas terrorist. But as long as people here are going to claim that he is soft on terrorism, I will remind them of Bush's cowardly gift to Al Queda. Anyone who gave Bush a pass onthe "I'm not really that concerned about him(OBL)" has no credibilty in criticizing Obama. Anything else is just shallow politics to score a few points.

tfhr said...


Your proof that Bush instructed intelligence and military leaders to stop looking for OBL, or any AQ leader for that matter?




Once again, mark, I was in Iraq and you were not. You must rely on the claims, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, from those that have a political axe to grind similar to your own. I can only point to what I have seen with my own eyes and lived with my own life. Keep reading your favorite lefty blogs because no doubt, mark, they know better than the rest of us. And isn't that what is best about being a leftist? Knowing what is best for the rest of us?

You're an idiot, mark, when you let BDS push reason from your being.

Pat Patterson said...

And I think I have pointed out several times that none of those investigations into unsafe water have ever resulted in one conviction. Or infection for that matter.

mark said...

The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02

You really want to defend those last two quotes? Do you have any evidence that Bush made those cowardly, terrorist-appeasing quotes just to throw them off?
Those two quotes are the most appallingly offensive and cowardly things said about the scumbag who killed 3000 Americans. And anyone who defended them has no right to call Obama soft on terrorism.
As for me being an idiot - I'm sure that's possible. However, if that were your only problem with me, I suspect you'd just ignore me, the way I ignore skay and a few others.
I'm about the only one here who will call you out on your b.s. You've said some incredibly cowardly things (condoning torture 'anything that saves lives is justified'), deserting your fellow soldiers (putrid water, faulty wiring, open burn pits) and implied that our military leaders are enabling the terrorists (closing gitmo).

You're a fraud. And maybe not an idiot, but not too smart, either.

But other than that, have a great day.

tfhr said...


One of these days you'll grow up and refrain from saying things on the internet that you would not actually say to someone's face. For example, calling someone a fraud regarding military service does imply that I've committed a crime. I'm not sure if blog comments are considered libel or slander, though being written, I'd expect the former rather than the latter. My DD-214 is a matter of historical record. Anytime you want to take this to the next step, let me know.

I can back up my stance on these issues because I've been there. I've drank the water. You drink the Kos Kool-Aid®. I've helped hunt down al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq while in Iraq as well as from in CONUS. I'm very proud of that because I know I actually helped save American and Iraqi lives. Now I suppose we could have dropped everything we were doing to stop suicide bombers in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan to find the proverbial needle in Haystackistan. We could have even invaded Pakistan like Obama once suggested, but given that the Intelligence Community cannot provide a location for a living Osama bin Laden, I'd think you'd be pretty upset if nothing came of the invasion. Remember how apoplectic you were when WMDs were not found on a large scale in Iraq? Should Bush have invaded Pakistan too?

Winning the war was Bush's priority and while it would have been nice to roll-up bin Laden, you can fairly well expect that the fighting would not have ended with that event anymore than the fighting in Iraq ended with the capture of Saddam. Declaring bin Laden dead without presenting evidence would be pointless but if his death were confirmed, bin Laden would achieve martyr status. The current disposition of bin Laden is that he is hiding and too afraid to even make a video tape. At the moment, bin Laden is more legend than leader. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was more or less the number three guy in AQ when he was captured. Do we really want to give this guy the opportunity to run his mouth on Court TV? Let him sit in GITMO. Winning the war must be the absolute priority in America but we're getting mixed messages from the current administration on that score.

mark, this is a global war that can be sustained by individual terrorist cells and their supporters. Killing or capturing leaders does help but they are replaced; that is a strength of terrorist networks. Personally, I don't think bin Laden is alive or if he is, I don't think he's in any capacity to lead AQ. Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri is the number two man in the AQ hierarchy if bin Laden is still alive and he does provide the rare video commentary from senior AQ leadership. Hopefully Obama will succeed in killing or capturing Zawahiri but what of his "failure" to kill or capture bin Laden? You must be pretty miffed that your community activist turned field marshal hasn't already rolled up bin Laden!

Look mark, I don't know why you spend so much effort to depict claims of contractor wrong-doing as being some sort of "proof" that going into Iraq was wrong or Vice President Cheney is the anti-Christ. The whole line is tired and ridiculous.

If you want to discuss what is being done to protect this country today, I'm all for it. But if all you can do is to continue to whine about your perceived grievances regarding the Bush White House, then I guess I can finally understand why you have such a lasting affinity for our current President, who sadly cannot take the reins because he's seated backwards on the saddle and pointing to the man that came before him while he apparently has no idea of his own for the direction he is taking this country.

mark said...

I called you a fraud not based on your service, but for your continous lies and hipocrisies.
I never based my opposition to the war on war-profiteering; I was (correctly) against the war from the beginning, before all the war-profiteering started. I'll add that while I was against the war, I stated here that we should pay for it and not push it off on future generations. I was willing to pay for something I was opposed to, but Bush (and many here) wanted it to be painless for the majority of Americans.
Your pathetic justification for turning your back on your troops would be like me saying my Toyota accelerates just fine, so the current problem is a phony scam made up by lousy drivers (or their grieving families). I'm glad you had good, clean food, water and air to breathe. Not everyone did. Surely you can grasp that. Saying you were fed well is an idiotic, insulting response.
Why is it still important?: The acorn scandal brought instant outrage and condemnation, and hopefully a change in that disgraceful situation.
If that same outrage had been expressed when the first cases of shoddy services for our military were exposed, the latter cases (like the open burn pits) might never have happened. But you and, more importantly, "respected" voices of the right, chose to ignore it.
I condemned the acts of Acorn, but I would say the case involving burn pits and shoddy services is far worse. because people have been seriously injured.
As far as a lack of prosecutions, that is mainly due to finger-pointing among the different contractors, and to the fact that these corporations sell, trade and buy subsidiaries, and then claim they are no longer liable.

tfhr said...


What lie(s)?

What hypocrisy?

I drank the same water as everyone else, ate in the same dining facility and used the same showers. Now tell me how I've "deserted my fellow soldiers"?

You sound unhinged but the one common thread throughout your complaints is that this always comes back to your petty partisan politics. The debate is about national security and that there seems to have been a failure on the part of Barack Obama to direct his AG and his (nonexistent)White House interrogation teams to properly process a newly captured terrorist or those that have been held for years. Whether we're talking about KSM or the Christmas panty bomber, it doesn't seem that our President gets it. We are at war.

I'm glad you recognize the folly in what was done (and not done) with regard to the panty bomber but why do you continuously regress to the same deflection tactics by trotting out your death water and Auschwitz-Gitmo memes? It's hype.

You used to complain about "profiteering" while Bush was in office and the theory then was that these large defense contractors were protected by the evil overlord Darth Cheney. Well, look under your bed, mark. Nothing there. Cheney's gone and Obama is here to save you. But where is the DoJ? Can't Holder pin this thing down and take the evil contractors to task? No? Why not?

As for being against the war before you were against it, that certainly makes you more consistent than John Kerry, who served in Vietnam before he was for the war he eventually became against. Again. Seriously, mark, you must be pretty hacked at all those Dem Senators that voted to go to war against Iraq. I'll bet you really raked them over the coals for that. Just like I'm sure you were sickened by all of the contractor support that provided support for our operations in the Balkans and are still there today. "Damn those contractors", right?

My suggestion is that you wise up and start getting to know the real world because your guy is tasked with his part in keeping it safe and right now he's not doing such a convincing job.