"Un-American" to oppose KSM trial in NYC

During the Bush administration, we heard the frequent straw-man charges, from the Democrats and the left, that they were being called “un-American” for opposing various policies. Hillary Clinton famously bellowed about it, but if the accusation of being “un-American” had been made with anything like the frequency the Dems pretended, it’s nebulous in my memory.

Since January of ’09, the Democrats have unleashed the “un-American” charge with some real frequency. Jon Stewart, who should know better, even wondered if hoping that Obama’s policies failed amounted to treason – something no one worried about when the left and the Democrats were actively working (not just hoping) for the failure of the last American president.

So it comes as no surprise to read that Democrat congressman James Moran of Virginia finds it “un-American” to oppose CIC Barack Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s plans to show-trial Khalid Sheik Mohammad and for of his terrorist co-conspirators in New York City.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has strong words for the Republicans opposing Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to bring five 9/11 suspects to New York City to face trial.

“They see this as an opportunity to demagogue,” he said. “They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they’ll even take a stand that’s un-American.”

“It’s un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial,” Moran added. “It’s against our principles as a nation.”

Wait. Didn’t a Clinton-appointed judge rule in December of 2006 that Congress, in passing (with bi-partisan support) their Military Commissions Act had “clearly intended” to keep such cases out of the federal courts and that “as a foreigner with no voluntary ties to the United States, [enemy combatants have] no claim to a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

So…Congress is “un-American?”

My own opinion, unlearned as it is, is that this move by the Obama administration is going to be a spectacular overreach that will topple them from their already-swaying pinnacle.

Related: Andrew McCarthy’s Trial and Terror:

Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. Plus, the Obama administration is continuing the commission system for other enemy combatants accused of war crimes. If we are going to have military commissions for any war criminals, it is senseless not to have them for the worst war criminals. In sum, there is no good legal or policy rationale for transferring these barbarians to the civilian justice system. Doing so will prompt a hugely costly three-ring circus of a trial, provide a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s anti-American bile, and create a public-safety nightmare for New York City.

There is, however, a patent political rationale behind Obama’s decision.

Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history.

This is exactly what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen.

From indictment to trial, the civilian case against the 9/11 terrorists will be a years-long seminar, enabling al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies to learn much of what we know and, more important, the methods and sources by which we come to know it. But that is not the half of it. By moving the case to civilian court, the president and his attorney general have laid the groundwork for an unprecedented surrender of our national-defense secrets directly to our most committed enemies.

Italics mine, because they sound…kind of creepily “un-American” to me.

One lesson to take away from this, it seems, is that it is safer for a president to do nothing to protect and defend his nation, than to do something. Hmmmm. That perhaps makes one the exceptional president of an unexceptional and vulnerable country.

More consistency:
“Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”. Cause the planet’s gonna die! Planetary death is looooooming! Except…ummm…whaa? Oh…being a boondoggle, the catastrophic climate change treaty has been put on hold. Delayed.

See? Things are already so much better, Obama can have a 71 car motorcade, and no carbon worries!

Prediction: Within the next two-four weeks we’ll see a study released claiming that all of the steps the world has “thus far taken” to reduce carbon output will have helpfully “bought us time” so that world leaders “who will eventually be forced to address this crisis head-on” can focus on matters economic, for the time being. You know – the planet will have been temporarily “saved or created.”

Ed Morrissey notes: Daniel Pearl’s family? UN-AMERICAN!

Hillary Clinton: For all my criticisms, I believe she wants to keep America safe, and I believe she would not have done this, as president (which is likely why the media and the left dumped her for Obama). I’d give enormous props if she resigned from this administration over this and started rebuilding her political career. I mean, it’s not like Obama is actually letting her do anything. Hey, now that we’ve won the World Series, I kinda miss ol’ Hillary.

Related:
Who is on trial, KSM or GWB? Two guesses.
Krauthammer

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://www.savkobabe.blogspot.com Gayle Miller

    How many American lives have been lost because of KSM? And I am so weary of the Left making it all about GWB. Mr. Obama is 11 months into his only term and he should be taking responsibility for his own poor choices. And there are plenty of them to choose from. How about his dithering on Afghanistan? Treating these mortal enemies of our country as criminals instead of the terrorists and hateful people they are is just wrong on so many levels I cannot even begin to elucidate.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention “Un-American” to oppose KSM trial in NYC » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

  • http://www.humanlife.net Dan Kennedy

    This is so predictable. I appreciate you putting all this together in one place.

    I like this: “It’s un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial,” Moran added. “It’s against our principles as a nation.”

    Alas, many Democrats will be on trial in view of their constituents next November. There will be no “indefinite” …

  • dry valleys
  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    Jim Moran is a blowhard putz. Even his colleagues in Congress know that.

    I guess George Washington was un-American and Abraham Lincoln was (super) un-American and Woodrow Wilson was un-American and FDR was un-American and Harry Truman was un-American and LBJ was un-American and Bill Clinton was un-American??

    Trivia Question: Which recent past president imprisoned non-Americans at Gitmo without charge and argued in court that he had the right to do so?

    Answer: Bill Clinton, who held Haitian and Cuban refugees, who were guilty of nothing except wanting to be free, in prison camps at Guantanamo Bay

  • Tom Mahoney

    I love it. To say it’s un-American to oppose something is about as un-American as you can get.

    I and 10′s of thousands of other Veterans fought for the freedom to be opposed to anything and say so. WE even fought for the right for you to be an A@$%@E and say that opposing something is un-American.

    KSM was responsible for an act of war. He is a war criminal and should be treated as such. The murder of a couple thousand innocent civilians is not a matter for a civilian court.

    I hope NYC doesn’t spring for any security. It’ll save the cost of a trial.

  • http://www.theredhunter.com Tom the Redhunter

    Yup, McCarthy nails it, as usual.

    Perhaps, as McCarthy himself has suggested, the real purpose of Obama/Holder is to ensure that so much information will be released that the transnational left will issue arrest warrants for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

  • Peggy Coffey

    Obama said he would not go after the CIA or Bush or Cheney for warcrimes. Is this a way to do it without getting his hands dirty?

  • cathyf

    The Geneva Convention grants war criminals the right of a military tribunal. Where are all of the leftists who were wingeing on about the GC for the past 8 years?
    [You are expecting them to be consistent? -admin]

  • http://jscafenette.com Jeanette

    I wonder how Obama and Holder expect a conviction in a civilian court when KSM was not read his Miranda “rights” when he was caught.

    Supposedly information gotten from him was under duress of being water-boarded.

    This whole think stinks of trying to show Bush as inhumane in his handling of the terrorists, and if something happens to a citizen of NY because of this political witch-hunt there will be hell to pay and it won’t be by George W. Bush.

    Obama owns this now, just as he owns what happened at Fort Hood and is trying to suppress an investigation. He doesn’t want anyone to admit it was an act of terror because then he’d be the one responsible as it happened under his watch, after over 8 years of safety under GW Bush.

    When KSM goes free or gets probation and sent back to continue his evil ways the American public will put the blame squarely on his ass since he shows it enough while bowing to every person with a royal title, except the Queen of England. And he was right not to bow to her and should never have bowed to the king of Mecca or the emperor of Japan who isn’t even a head of state.

    I think the man is enamored of royalty and wishes he were royal also. Maybe he made it up in his head that his father was royalty in Kenya. He’s made up everything else in his life.

  • Pingback: There has always been weather » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X