29 November 2009

The problem with KSM

I've been cogitating since I heard that the Obama administration was going to try KSM in New York City, right down the street from where the WTC used to stand.

And my friends, I'm going to tell you that there will be nothing good that comes from this.

In no particular order, here's (just part) of the bag of worms this administration has opened:
SEN. HERB KOHL: In the worst case scenario and the trial does not result in conviction, what would be your next steps?

A.G. ERIC HOLDER: Failure is not an option.
So is Holder saying that KSM will be found guilty, regardless? Do you think the islamists are going to be happy with American justice - since after all, the Attorney General of the United States is on record of saying that KSM is going to be found guilty, because failure's not an option, right? How's that going to sit with the infamous arab street? So much for Chairman Obama's attempt to get the arab world to love us.

Our government has now given Constitutional rights to people who are not only NOT American citizens, but to people who have actively worked to destroy this country - and as a by product, the American Constitution. Does this mean now that any asshat our troops capture on the battlefield will be read their Miranda rights like a common criminal in this country? What will this do to any terrorist we capture on the battlefield from now on?

As mentioned here:

GRAHAM: We’re making history here Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you: the answer’s no. The Ghelani case, he was indicted for pre-nine…for the Cole bombing before 9/11 and I didn’t object going into federal court. But I’ll tell you right now, we’re making history and we’re making bad history. And let me tell you why. If Bin Laden were caught tomorrow would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice? … When does custodial interrogation begin in his case? If we capture Bin Laden tomorrow would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again, I’m not… it all depends.

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, there are 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. What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him you must read him his rights and give him a lawyer? And if you did tell him that would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?

If I were a defense attorney representing these turds, the first thing I would do is say "judge, my clients were not read their Miranda rights when they were captured and as a result, anything they have said since that time is null and void." If that doesn't work, look for plan B: "judge, my clients were tortured, waterboarded, treated like caged animals. Anything they said in Gitmo is tainted evidence and cannot be trusted."

Secrets. Don't think for a minute that the scumbag defense attorneys won't ask to see what we knew about KSM and how we knew it. Methods and means of gathering intelligence are going to be revealed, allies are going to be left holding the bag (because if there's one thing we've learned about the Messiah it's that it is never HIS fault), and the security of our country is going to be put at risk and weakened. The entire American system will be put on trial, not KSM. One of the scumbag's lawyers has stated so already.

This trial has lose, lose, lose written all over it; and our country will be the worse for it.
Post a Comment