Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘9/11 mastermind’

POOR OBAMA – THE BIG APPLE SAYS “TAKE YOUR SHOW TRIAL” SOMEWHERE ELSE

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010

So, last night the White House taps the Justice Department on the shoulder and says, “You Know, J, I’ve been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that maybe we ought to take these 9/11 terror trials out of New York City and put them somewhere else. It might be the best thing for everyone. So, do me a favor, would you? Be a dear and look into possibly of getting us a new spot, okay? Thanks, hon!”

The New York Daily News reports:

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.

It’s a shame the White House didn’t fully come to its senses and tell the Justice Department, “You Know, J, I’m fond of you and all – and you’ve done some great work for us in the past – but I really need to give this Khalid Shaikh Mohammed thing to the military boys. It’s really their gig. It’s a war thing, you know.”

Leaders have suggested other venues for the trial, such as the Military Academy at West Point or Stewart Air National Guard Base in upstate Newburgh.

Guantanamo Bay, I hear, has excellent facilities, including air conditioning, padded matresses, and toilets capable of flushing down entire books, if necessary.

Let us not forget that these terrorists already admitted their guilt and were more than prepared to accept their punishment. In fact, they asked for death. There was no problem whatsoever until the coddling hand of modern liberalism intervened. Now there are a whole lot of virgins up in heaven, sitting around, doing nothing.

This trial has no business being held in the very city that suffered the brunt of the damage on September 11, 2001 – nor does it have any business being held in Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, the Ozarks, Pumpkinpussville, or any civilian venue in the United States.

It was certainly nice of Mayor Mike Bloomberg to take a breather from his war on cigarettes, fatty oils and salt to actually do something that makes sense.

But the real question is: Who’s going to host this farce now that the Big Apple is saying, “no”?

Maybe a deal can be struck with Senator Ben Nelson for an Omaha show trial.

wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Posted in Justice System, Mike Bloomberg, New York City, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SENATOR CONRAD PLAYS THE “LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT” CARD

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota – who, by the way, is not up for election next year (as astutely pointed out by Rob at Say Anything) – says that if any of us don’t believe in our system (as he does), we might want to consider going elsewhere; a kind of twenty-first century variation of “America, love it or leave it.” Of course, he is referring to those of us who are enraged that enemy combatants who waged war on the United States are being tried in a civilian court in New York City. He is talking about those of us who despise the fact that terrorists captured on the battle field have been granted the Constitutional protection of American citizens. In his mind, American “civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute Al-Qaeda terrorists.”

Matt Cover of CNS News writes:

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Conrad: “We’re going to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If our troops–the evidence against him is going to be found in Afghanistan, there on the battlefield–if our troops need to enter a house and they think that there’s evidence there, should they have to establish probable cause and get a search warrant from a judge first?”

Conrad said: “You’re not being serious about these questions, are you?”

CNSNews.com: “[Yes], in a civilian trial. If I was on trial or you were on trial, that would have to be [done].”

Conrad responded, “We have tried terrorists in our courts and done so very successfully in the past and that is our system. So if people don’t believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else. I believe in America.”

There are two points to make here.

First, as Rob at Say Anything explains, the terrorists that have been tried in civilian court in the past, like Timothy McVeigh and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, were apprehended “domestically by domestic law enforcement officials.” By contrast, the 9/11 co-conspirators who will stand trial in New York were captured by military forces on the field of battle or in the prosecution of war. Therefore, they were not subject to the guidelines and procedures of “civilian judicial standards.”  It’s difficult to imagine that there will not a host of legal issues to contend with when those captured as enemy combatants are tried as civilians.

Second, this is a matter of national security. These “defendants,” with the same protections afforded American civilian criminals, will have access to intelligence that cannot be denied them. Thus, by definition, civilian courts are not well-suited to prosecuting war criminals.

Sorry, Kent.

Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.

Talk show host Larry Elder pointed out on Monday (while substituting for Dennis Prager) that the “rules of evidence” in the 1993 World Trace Center bombing trials resulted in security compromises:

“You know, in the trial of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and the trial of blind Sheikh, people don’t realize how much information was given to the bad guys because of those trials, because in a civilian trial you have a right to have everything the prosecution has.

And so, because of those two trials, Osama Bin Ladin found out he was an unindicted co-conspirator – that we were after his butt – and he moved from Sudan to Afghanistan because of that. Because of those trials, Al-Qaeda found out that we tracking their whereabouts via their cell phones. They stopped using their cell phones.”

Believing in America, Mr. Conrad, has nothing to do with having to accept asinine political plays that literally put the security of the nation at risk.

It’s about keeping America safe.

Jackass.

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TERRORIST LAWYER: I CAN’T SAY IF 9/11 WAS MURDER

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009

Kudos to Attorney General Eric Holder – and of course, the man really calling all the shots, President Barack Obama – for bringing the mastermind of the September 11th attacks (and four of his cohorts) to New York City to face a civilian jury of his non-peers. Congratulations to the walking unconscious who constitute America’s gurgling leftocracy for furnishing a forum from where the 9/11 five will spend the next who-knows-how-many-years spitting out their anti-American propaganda. And an extra special tip of the hat to Scott Fenstermaker, attorney for Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali (one of the 9/11 five), who appeared on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor last evening to prove to the prying eyes of the world that American justice is, indeed, blind, and that even terrorists can be innocent until proven guilty.

It was remarkable exchange.

Fenstermaker, for instance, was unwilling to say that the nearly three thousand people killed on September 11, 2001 were actually murdered.

Can't say that it's murderO’Reilly: Now, if the anti-American stuff dominates the trial, which it has to on your side – the defense – don’t you think the 9/11 families are going to suffer hearing this kind of garbage?

Fenstermaker: Well, I don’t necessarily think the defense is going to be anti-American. I think it’s basically going to be a justification defense.

O’Reilly: A justification for murdering three thousand civilians? That’s a pretty tough nut.

Fenstermaker: Well, I think the jury decides whether they’ve murdered three thousand. First of all, I don’t think it’s three thousand people. I think it’s less than that. However many it is, I think the jury decides that.

O’Reilly: Do you think there’s any justification on earth to kill thousands of civilians who go to work in the morning? Is there anything to justify that?

Fenstermaker: I’m not the person who is going to be making that decision.

O’Reilly: You’re the lawyer. I mean, you’re going to be asked that question. Surely, you’re going to be prepared to answer it.

Fenstermaker: As I explained before, I’m actually not going to be representing my client –

O’Reilly: But you’re working on the team.

Fenstermaker: That’s right.

O’Reilly: I’ll ask it again. Is there any justification on this earth to murder thousands of innocent people?

Fenstermaker: Well, as I said, the trial is to determine whether they were murdered or not. And a jury’s going to decide that.

O’Reilly: Are you sitting here as a human being telling me the people on 9/11 weren’t murdered?

Fenstermaker: I’m telling you the jury’s going to decide that.

O’Reilly: I want to know what you think.

Fenstermaker: I’m not going to be a juror in that case.

O’Reilly: So, you’re not going to say one way or another whether you feel those people were murdered?

Fenstermaker: I’m not a juror. The jurors decide.

And for those who may have held even the slightest inkling of hope that the trial would not descend into an anti-American, propoganda-filled farce, I extend my deepest regrets:

O’Reilly: In the courtroom, we are going to hear Al-Qaeda propaganda, correct?

Fenstermaker: I wouldn’t say that’s the case. I’d say you’re going to hear a lot of propaganda. I wouldn’t necessarily say –

O’Reilly: Well, if they’re Al-Qaeda, what kind of propaganda? Are we going to hear Roman Catholic propaganda?

Fenstermaker: We’re going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.

O’Reilly: So, the strategy is to attack the United States government foreign policy and the way they operate?

Fenstermaker: I wouldn’t say that. All I’m saying is you’re going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.

O’Reilly: But I don’t understand what that means. If you’re on the team, and you’re shaping your defense, what are we going to hear? That the United States is bad?

Fenstermaker: Bad? I don’t know what bad means.

O’Reilly: You don’t know what bad means? We’re getting into Bill Clinton territory. We don’t know what “is” means.

Fenstermaker: Okay.

O’Reilly: You’re okay with that?

Fenstermaker: What I’m okay with is that I think they’re going to put on their defense. The jurors are going to decide –

O’Reilly: You’re part of the defense.

Fenstermaker: As I’ve explained, I’m not going to be part of the defense at the trial.

O’Reilly: I don’t care about that. You’re shaping the defense. You just got back from Guanatanamo. You know these guys –

Fenstermaker: I know one of them.

O’Reilly: All right, you know one of them. Re we going to hear that they’re justified in killing three-thousand American civilians because the country – the USA – is a vile country? Are we going to hear that?

Fenstermaker: I think that the number of people was actually less than three-thousand.

Fenstermaker went on to say that he was not only honored to be part of the defense team, but that he would be quite satisfied to see the 9/11 five walk away scot-free, as long as the trial was a fair one.

After O’Reilly asked him whether or not he cared that people hated him for being part of the terrorist’s defense team, Fenstermaker replied, “I’m honored that they hate me … I’m honored because the people who hate me hate the rule of law.”

Another round of applause for the Bammy Bunch is in order.

Without them, this “The Constitution is For Everyone” bag-o-fun would not be possible.

And just think, this is only the beginning.

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

NOT GUILTY, SAY THE 9/11 FIVE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 23, 2009

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Oh, those nutty terrorists.

Leave it to barbarous murderers who have utter disdain for the United States to take advantage of the American system of justice for their own benefit. Leave it to vermin who target innocents through acts of war to milk the American Constitution for the very rights they abhor. Leave it to those who laughed and applauded when the Twin Towers came crashing down to squeeze the American legal system by using a civilian courtroom as a showcase for their repugnant rhetoric – and do so only blocks from where those towers once stood. And leave it to American leftists to afford these remorseless war-makers Constitutional rights in the first place so all of this can happen.

To the Eric Holders and Barack Obamas of the world, this circus-to-be will demonstrate to our fellow citizens-of-the-world what American fairness is really all about. Our openness will inspire. Our transparency will impress.

It isn’t hard to imagine a cave hidden somewhere in the treacherous mountains of northern Afghanistan where would-be terrorists are sitting around having conversations such as this:

Terrorist 1: “Man, that American legal system is really wonderful, isn’t it, Mohammed?”

Terrorist 2: “Damn straight, Ali.”

Terrorist 1: “They are leading by example, Mohammed.”

Terrorist 2: “We should all get along. America is showing us how.”

Terrorist 1: “It was that last apology Obama made for America that really got to me.”

Terrorist 2: “Yes. me, too.”

As first glance, to go from wanting to die to pleading “not guilty” may seem like quite a leap – even for Muslim terrorists – but that’s precisely what’s happened.

And it really shouldn’t have surprised anyone.

According to the attorney of one of the “defendants,” the five terrorists slated to stand trial in New York for the September 11th attacks will not deny their involvement. Rather, they want to take the opportunity to “explain what happened and why they did it.”

The first thought that came to mind, of course, was, “Thank God! Now we can finally get the bottom of all this. This ought to shed some much needed light on that whole 9/11 thing.”

Such a relief!

Karen Matthews of the Associated Press writes:

[Ali Abd al-Aziz] Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said.

“Their assessment is negative,” he said.

I think we can all take a “No, really?” out of petty cash.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Critics of Holder’s decision — mostly Republicans — argued the trial will give Mohammed and his co-defendants a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric. Holder said such concerns are misplaced, and any pronouncements by the suspects would only make them look worse.

“I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is,” Holder told the committee. “I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial — and no one else needs to be, either.”

They were all minding their own businesses, planting sunflowers, harvesting radishes, exchanging falafel recipes, playing soccer, performing innocent nondescript clitoridectomies on their female young when war-mongering, Israel-loving America came swooping in with her implements of death to slaughter as many Muslims as possible.

Something like that.
wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

DAVID AND BARRY – NOT ON THE SAME PAGE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009

The Governor of New York and the President of the United States aren’t exactly tight. While they are both big time Democrats who hail from big blue states, they seem to have about as much affection for each other as a gaping flesh wound has for salt.

The President, for instance, has all but asked Paterson to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race, and the Governor has all but told him to take a flying leap off a high ledge.

That’s how they play together.

The decision by the Obama administration to bring terrorists to New York to stand trial has only widened the gap between them.

While most Democrats seem to be in favor of Attorney General Eric Holder’s (i.e., President Obama’s) disastrous decision to have 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, tried in a civilian court with four of his terrorist chums, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, doesn’t like the idea one bit.

For once, I agree with the otherwise useless governor of my state.

Marcia Kramer from WCBS-TV in New York writes:

Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.

“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.

Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.

“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”

Paterson went on to say that “he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.”

As difficult as this is to say definitively, considering the cavalcade of harm President Obama has already overseen since taking office ten months ago, this decision to bring war criminals to New York to be tried as civilians may very be the most disastrous of all.

More importantly, this is a very bad move for the United States. Treating war criminals like civilians, who will potentially have access to intelligence data and Bush-era policy information, is a calamity waiting to happen. It will also afford these examples of human excrement a forum from which to disgorge their hateful prattle.

As it stands right now, nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe this is a bad idea – that a military court is the place to try these war makers who have already asked to be put to death.

The first noise you hear is the gentle sound of terrorist laughter wafting across the oceans into New York, where that great big hole in the ground still sits.

That other sound you hear is Obama’s base collectively gnawing on that great big bone he threw them.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Evil, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »