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.
“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.