Thursday, November 26, 2009

President Obama hopes to bring a terrorist to a courthouse or prison near you !


My wife is from Springfield New Jersey, just outside of New York City. The first time I visited her there, she took me into "the city", as they call New York, and one of the first place's she took me to was the World Trade Center. We still have the pictures from the top floor observation deck. It was a spectacular view of New York City, looking down on the Empire State Building !


My wife's parents still live in the same house where she grew up, less than 20 miles from Manhattan, where the Twin Towers once stood. You can see the Manhattan skyline from the top of the hill behind her parents house, and my father-in-law watched the towers burn and collapse from that hill on 9-11. The terrorist attack was "personal" for the people of New York and neighboring New Jersey. They lost neighbors, friends, and some lost family.

Now Barack Obama wants to bring the terrorists responsible for masterminding the attack to the United States for a trial, and give them all of the rights and protections of our legal system. I spoke with my wife's childhood friend Lori Wuest (Smith) on the phone the other night. She still lives in Springfield, and she told me that people in the New York area are furious the President is trying to score political points by holding a "show trial" in New York, and allowing these terrorists access to our courts and the media coverage.

Personally, I believe the Bush administration position was correct; the terrorists should be treated as "enemy combatants" and tried in military courts. They should be kept at our base in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, and tried by military tribunal, by military officers. But instead, President Obama has said he will close the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Naval Base, and bring the terrorists to America to be held and tried. They have even been considering several sites in Michigan as possible detention centers for terrorists currently held at "GITMO". Khalid Sheikh Mohammed must be laughing to himself as he anticipates the fine legal protections he will be afforded in America and the mockery he will be able to make of our justice system, not to mention the access to the liberal mainstream media he will have. It was reported that when he was first apprehended and questioned, he said " I will talk after I get to New York and get a lawyer". Now President Obama is granting his wish.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed


The attacks of 9-11 were very personal for the people in the New York metro area, and now President Obama is going to bring the terrorists to New York, to a courthouse just a few blocks from ground zero, and make it "personal" for them again. It will be a media circus that puts the O.J. trial to shame. Then, if his administration decides to imprison them in Michigan, it will become personal for us in Michigan as well.

28 comments:

  1. So, in other words, Brian, you have no faith in our police, our security or our legal system? That's basically what you're say, is that our country is too weak, our legal system too fragile to stand up to terrorists, right?

    I think we show the world our strength and why America is envied by people all over the world by trying in our legal system, which is supposed to be one of the centerpieces of our democracy. You do believe in Democracy, don't you, Brian?

    I guess maybe you don't. Maybe you believe, as a secret Communist, that our system of democracy and laws can't handle a couple of thugs that killed 3000 of our citizens.

    We have tried terrorists in our courts before and been successful.

    Perhaps you're afraid that because we tortured our prisoners, and that evidence won't be allowed to be used, that we won't be able to get a conviction and I know you support torture, so it would be really bad for you and your fellow conservatives if you favored torture and the reason we couldn't get a conviction is because we tortured our prisoners.

    That would really make the pro-torture crowd like you look like the idiots you are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While i agree with what you say about being personal for many people thats part of why i am thankful there will be a criminal trial instead of a military tribunal. Its important that these people are tried and convicted under the strictest of terms, our system rather than the loosey goosey system of the comissions. I can't imagine that people would want otherwise.

    I find it laughable that people supported the BS enemy combatants label. It was just a convient way to step outside of our own laws and regulations. It was a complete and utter failure on the Bush administration to live up to the standards of this great country. We became less than what we should've been.

    Now we have finally come back to what justice is. Our country deserves these trials, deserves the chance to watch our legal system, surely the greatest system in the world operate and justice will prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Bruce,
    I know you like to try to put words in people's mouths and then get them to "react" , that's how you lost your job in The Oakland Press... But let me just correct you.
    I do have faith in our Police, but this is not just a "crime" that needs to be handled in court like you lib's would like people to think.
    This was an attack on our country by foreign terrorists, an act of war by enemy combatants who don't follow the accepted rules of warfare. They attack civilians, they refuse to wear uniforms so they can integrate into our society and attack from within.

    This requires a different response, handled by our military. But you wouldn't understand "national defense", you think our Army should be a "humanitarian meals-on-wheels" organization.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JoeC, in your opinion, was the attack of 9-11 a "crime", or an "act of war" by a foreign terrorist organization determined to destroy the United States ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian - I believe that in order for it to be an "act of war", it has to be a nation - or representatives of a nation acting in their behalf. Following that rationale, then it should have been Saudi Arabia we attacked, not Afghanistan or Irag. There is no such legal term "enemy combatant" either in our laws or international law EXCEPT that which was created out of thin air by the Bush administration. Indeed, it was a terrorist attack on 9/11 but not an "act of war".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian, talk about putting words in people's mouths. 9/11 was carried out by 19 men, mostly from Saudi Arabia, so if we attacked a nation, it seems to me we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, but we know that would never happen.

    The fact is that 9/11 was not carried out by a nation, but a few terrorists that could have been based anywhere in the world.

    Basically we are using a couple hundred thousand troops to go after a small group of terrorists. Why do you think George W. Bush wouldn't send more troops when we had Osama Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora? I think it's because he needed Osama bin Laden out there to be his boogey man, to justify his war of choice, to keep the American people afraid enough to justify his war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another great post by Brian. Don't you on the left have faith in our military courts? This is a big fat political game to the Democrats. It gives the terrorist a venue they will use to their advantage at the cost of our citizens. These terrorist will say a lot of the same things Obama,Pelosi,Ried and the rest of the left have said. It makes you wonder why the terrorists and the far left have so much in common. Doesn't it Brian? Mike the other countries helped the UN and the US get the terrorists in their country. And you can't fight the whole Middle East as that would be dumb wouldn't it Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, Chris, I don't have any faith in the military commission kangaroo courts, where evidence is secret, lawyers only rarely can meet with their clients, etc.

    Our country's legal system and security measures can handle KSM and the others just like we handled the blind sheikh.

    Why do you have so little faith in our system of justice, Chris and Brian?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tim Geitner,Charlie Rangel,Bill Clinton,Ted Kennedy,Patrick Kennedy,Elliot Spitzer,Kwamye Kilpatrick,William Ayers are a few reasons Bruce.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Christopher, wow. I notice your list didn't have one Republican in it.

    Your glass is always half empty, isn't it, Christopher?

    Who would you hold up as example good public servants?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Christopher - What, you wouldn't include Abraham Lincoln??

    Seriously, I noticed your list of "bad guys", aside from being Democrats only, clearly fell within that category of "small potatoes" in the crime world. And Ayers, while connected with domestic terrorism never killed anyone. I think anyone could come up with an equal list of "bad guys" who have an "R" attached to their name.

    But how about some real "humdingers". Crimes that had far reaching effect. How about Enron or Exxon Valdez, or Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, or 3 mile Island, or Halliburton, KBR - perhaps Tyco and those Wall Street firms like AGI. I submit more people's lives have been destroyed by these entities and the people running them then your paltry condemnation of a few petty crooks. You are consentrating on the shoplifter while the bigger guys cleans out the cash register.

    ReplyDelete
  12. vomamike, The 1st question was; "Why do you have so little faith in our system of justice?" not the SIZE of a case but seeking a reason.

    The 2nd question started with ; "WHO" so I picked the best one,Washington served this country BEFORE it was one as General of the Continental Army and then again as our 1st President.

    He sought neither post,but was ASKED and he served , reluctantly twice as President and when he was done he DID NOT STAY IN PUBLIC SERVICE. You see he was first and last true public servant as he DID NOT MAKE A CAREER OUT OF IT.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow, are Bruce, vomamike and Joey losing it or what?

    Brian put forth a pretty strong argument against having these terrorists tried in our criminal courts, including "[KSM] anticipates the fine legal protections he will be afforded in America and the mockery he will be able to make of our justice system, not to mention the ACCESS TO THE LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA he will have." and "The attacks of 9-11 were very personal for the people in the New York metro area, and now President Obama is going to bring the terrorists to New York, to a courthouse just a few blocks from ground zero, and make it "personal" for them again. It will be a media circus that puts the O.J. trial to shame."

    Of course Bruce Fealk automatically counters with his straw man, that Brian does not trust our police?? I mean really Bruce, can you make a real argument, or do you continuously have to invent this BS?!

    Shortly after Holder's announcement I was listening to a round-table on NPR's Here and Now (with Robin Young). Even the LIBERAL commentors in the panel were stupefied at this trial. As THEY said, and I happen to agree with them, these terrorists now have a platform on which to spread their message of hate (much like Failk's blog, but I digress).

    Furthermore, they were stunned by the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and this so-called "fair trial". On the one hand, Obama and Holder have said that KSM et. al. will have a fair trial, and in the same breath these two MENSA candidates stated that he IS and WILL be found guilty; Holder even went so far as to say that even if NOT convicted (which, these two said WILL NOT HAPPEN, sounds like the American justice system at work to me) he will STILL not be released.

    This TOTALLY and COMPLETELY destroys the position that these terrorists will receive a fair trial or even the purpose of HAVING a trial! Internationally, everyone already realizes that these terrorists are already convicted!! Is this how Obama and Holder plan to hold the American justice system up as the model for the world?!!?

    This is so utterly inept, I don't see how you idiot liberals can even defend the position. Oh, wait, you CAN'T, which is why you have to release the straw men.

    Bruce - You're such a fan of YouTube, what do you think about this exchange between Lindsey Graham and Holder? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4, in particular the part about whether an enemy combatant has ever been tried in civilian court?

    Vomamike, it's hilarious the straw man that you are putting out there. Exxon? Haliburton?? How about Carson, who wrote the book against DDT, leading to an estimated 300,000,000 deaths from malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa? Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, one more thing. Bruce said "I think we show the world our strength and why America is envied by people all over the world by trying in our legal system, which is supposed to be one of the centerpieces of our democracy. You do believe in Democracy, don't you, Brian?"

    Vomamike, Joey, I think you have to agree with me, that we are in actuality a Republic, not a Democracy. You need to inform Brucie, because I'm sure he wouldn't believe it if it came from me. And that, my friends, is the beginning but nowhere near the end of Bruce's lack of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well John once again brilliantly comes thru.

    One thing though John, for one to have 'lack of knowledge', that pre-supposes they had 'some knowledge'to begin with.

    I maintain he bas 'No knowledge' whatsoever,hence his little rant's.

    A common field mouse has more direction and purpose than that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To the lib's; I said "I do have faith in our Police, but this is not "just a crime" that needs to be handled in court like you lib's would like people to think.
    Although there were many "crimes" committed during this attack, the fact that they planned and executed an attack on the United States of America constitutes an Act of War.
    The correct response to an act of war,as George W. Bush said, is for our military to "bring the terrorists to justice."

    Hey Bruce, by the way, I had coffee with Marty Knollenberg Friday. My next blog will probably deal with some things he is working on in the state legislature. He, like his father, is a good man.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Brian, I can hardly wait to read it. Joe Knollenberg may be a "good man" but he was a lousy Congressman.

    ReplyDelete
  18. These libs were affraid of our gov't when under Bush now all the sudden they are the most trusting souls. How dumb is that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John,
    Like I said dozens of times to Bruce and his whiny pal dj, they would LOVE Cuba, so why don't they just renounce their U.S. citizenship and move there ?
    Cuba would love to have them and we would be glad to be rid of them ...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Brian, i like Vona think terrorism is a crime not a act of war. I don't buy that individuals or non-governmental groups can commit acts of war.

    To me labeling things that way is solely to get around the laws that make our country great.

    ReplyDelete
  21. John, i have to say SOOOOO???

    So its a republic or a representative democracy it doesn't matter to me. Call it what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brian, you're like a little boy that's lost an argument with one of their friends. "Oh, yeah, well, if you don't like it, you can just leave."

    Wow, take that.

    You really don't love America, Brian. You hate everything America stands for, law, freedom of religion, and the rest of the things that make America different from the rest of the world.

    You say you love America until it gets hard. Well, this is one of those hard ones, Brian. Yes, it's hard to give these criminals a fair trial under the laws of the United States of America, but America is a hard idea. If it was easy, there would be lots of countries like America. But in America we stand up for the rule of law even when it's hard.

    In America we always have freedom of religion and the right to follow no religion at all. In America we have a separation between church and state, even though that really pisses off people like you that would like to have only people who have sworn an oath to Jesus Christ himself in order to be in government.

    So, you know what, Brian, you'll have to tolerate me here. Because I ain't leaving, unless Sarah Palin were to ever achieve high political office. Then I'd leave of my own free will, but never to Cuba.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John,
    After reading a few of JoeC's comments, I don't think he's is too smart. Also, he claims to be in Skilled Trades at my Ford plant, but I have never heard of the guy ... I think he is full of B.S.

    I can see why you don't like to waste your time with his and Brucs's comments ... they are lame.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joey - We are a Republic, I was just asking you to tell Bruce for me. I wasn't taking a shot at you in any way.

    Bruce - What do you have against Cuba? Michael Moore said their health care tops the U.S., and the government runs everything. Sounds to me like your brand of utopia. What is wrong with Cuba in your mind?

    Bruce, how is it a "fair trial" if they are already presumed guilty in the mind of the President? How is it a "fair trial" if, irregardless of outcome, the accused will still not be released? Or do you propose that this man should be released if found not guilty? Oh, wait, the President said that that is not an option, my bad. So.... that's a fair trial? I don't follow, but then again I guess I'm just not a legal eagle like you are Bruce. Just walk me through it big guy. Use your stenographer's powers for good.

    ReplyDelete
  25. John, I think the President made a mistake presuming the guilt and punishment of the terrorists. I do believe, however, that there is a evidence gained without torture, that will be enough to convict all of the terrorists beyond a reasonable doubt, which is our legal standard.

    What you and your ilk want to do is ignore the Constitution consistently. Indefinite detention should not be an option either. And in their culture, if we execute them, they will be martyrs of the highest order. We should imprison them for life, hopefully after they are found guilty. We can put our legal system aside when it's hard, like it is in this case. Freedom and democracy are hard ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Brian, after reading your blogs its apparent why you never became trades. I don't work at Sterling any longer. I used to work on Weldmation there and on the paint line.

    John, i didn't think you were taking a shot.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bruce - What you think or believe means absolutely ZILCH. It's now what a jury believes. It is absolutely no semblance of the American judicial system if they are already presumed guilty before trial, and if they are not convicted they are still held indefinitely. You make idiotic statements like: "We can put our legal system aside when it's hard, like it is in this case. Freedom and democracy are hard ideas.", but then you want to hold them indefinitely if not convicted?! You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever seen!! And you want to imprison them for life "HOPEFULLY after they are found guilty". Talk about a kangaroo court. Oh, that's right, you did, but you were talking about military tribunals?!?!

    BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA... Bruce, wants it both ways. Including, not to get off the subject, but including the fact that he says we want to ignore the Constitution when what I and most conservatives want is to get BACK to the Constitution. Bruce, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you and the other liberals the idiots who wants to force people to buy health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution!?! You are soooooo full of it Bruce. And that is just ONE of the MANY examples of how you and the rest of you liberals want to trash MY freedoms.

    Who cares if they are martyrs Bruce?!? These people have a new martyr every 5 minutes. You are unbelievably stupid Bruce, seriously, you might be eligible for Medicaid funds for your mental retardation. Although I hate to denigrate retarded people by putting you on their level.

    Bruce, did you figure out what kind of government we are running here in These United States of America? Let me give you a hint, it begins with an "R"...

    ReplyDelete