Attorney General Eric Holder made history yesterday. He is the first Cabinet member to be held in criminal and civil contempt of Congress. This vote could have been avoided, if only he had turned over the requested documents. His refusal puts the entire blame for this exercise on his shoulders, and his alone. Holder brought the contempt charges on himself when he chose to ignore the US Congress' legitimate demands for information to which they had every right. His contempt for the US Congress and the American people in this and other matters has now officially been reciprocated. One hundred democrats refused to vote, choosing instead to walk out. Seventeen democrats not only stayed to vote, but crossed the aisle and voted to hold Holder in criminal contempt. Twenty-one democrats voted to hold him in civil contempt.
Showing posts with label Eric Holder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eric Holder. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
CONTEMPT AND PRIVILEGE
In the latest twist on the eighteen-month-long endeavor to discover what exactly happened in regards to Operation Fast and Furious, the House Oversight Committee voted to cite Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It passed the committee 23-17 - on party lines - and is now headed to the floor of the House for a vote that is expected to take place some time next week (where is is expected to pass - again on a party line vote). For those not familiar with OF&F, go here and here for background.
Monday, April 9, 2012
VOTER ID AND REALITY
The Department of Justice has been busily blocking various and sundry state voter ID laws recently, arguing that requiring people to show a state-approved photo ID in order to cast a vote will disenfranchise many voters - particularly in urban areas, where many citizens don't drive. The NAACP have gone so far as to argue before the UN that voter ID laws are human rights violations, even though many poor and minority voters seem to want their votes protected by ID requirements. DoJ chief Eric Holder maintains that voter ID laws suppress voter turnout. Eh, not so much.
Friday, July 29, 2011
THE NOOSE IS TIGHTENING FAST AND FURIOUSLY
I was going to post this as an update to my last post on Operation Fast and Furious but decided it was so important that it needed it's own post.
In testimony this week, Bill Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office stated to investigators that he had sent an email to a longtime friend in the White House that included information on Operation Fast and Furious. Eh, no big deal, right? A low-level exchange of information between friends that never went beyond their circle of two.
In testimony this week, Bill Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office stated to investigators that he had sent an email to a longtime friend in the White House that included information on Operation Fast and Furious. Eh, no big deal, right? A low-level exchange of information between friends that never went beyond their circle of two.
Monday, July 11, 2011
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT: FAST AND FURIOUS EDITION Updated
Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) has been relentlessly attempting to unravel the Gordian Knot that is Operation Fast and Furious (aka Gunwalker) since he took over the chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee. This absolute clusterfark of an operation is utterly irredeemable. At best, it is an egregious example of how badly an operation can be mismanaged. At worst, it is a high level endeavor that allowed high powered weaponry to get in the hands of drug cartels, possibly for the sole purpose of spiking violence in order to implement stricter federal gun control laws in this country.
It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that the guns President Obama spoke of regulating back in 2009 - AK-47 type assault rifles and Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles - are at the heart of the violent crisis on the border and are the very guns involved in Gunwalker (Pajamas Media has a great back story on this theory). In fact, this operation is such a catastrophe that the Mexican government is demanding answers. Having lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 agents to those weapons over the past eighteen months, you can't really blame them.
Initial attempts at keeping the blame limited to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) only have failed miserably. As more sun shines down on this ugly piece of business, more agencies are shown to have their fingers in the pie. It's a veritable vegetable soup - ATF, DEA, FBI, DHS and DoJ. Can you spell "C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N"?
The premise of the operation was simple: track weapons dealers and the path of the guns they bought over the border and into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. These sorts of stings are done frequently by law enforcement officers around the country. Because these guns were going to be tracked across the southern border the operation was put into the hands of the ATF, with oversight by the Department of Justice. Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
Yeah, not so much.
First off, the "dealers" they were tracking turned out to be FBI informants already. Ooopsie. Which means the main premise for the operation was moot from the get-go. But fear not, they still poured two years, $10 million and countless man hours into the endeavor. Oh, and the life of one border patrol agent and several thousand Mexican citizens, not that they count in the grand scheme. Ah, the gentle efficiencies of the government juggernaut....
Second, for some reason no one has been able to explain, ATF was told to cease surveillance of the approximately 1,765 guns once they left the hands of the dealers. They were not to follow them on their trip across the border to their final destination, they were not to gather intel on the final buyer and they were not to work with the Mexican government on the sting. The official line is that the ATF (aka "The Scapegoat") "lost track of" the weapons. In reality, there are memos and sworn testimony that show that the ATF was instructed to cease surveillance of the weapons. ATF Director Kenneth Melson (aka "The Patsy") isn't exactly willing to take the fall, as his secret testimony shows.
By the way, did I mention this wonderful $10 million program was funded by the stimulus bill (just for that extra dollop of outrage). Unfortunately this operation might possibly end up being one of the biggest job creators in that boondoggle of a bill. Just think of all the additional police, border agents, forensics personnel, nurses, doctors, paramedics, undertakers, coffin makers and gravestone carvers who saw a big jump in demand as a direct result of Fast and Furious.
Now that the scandal is starting to gain traction in the press and the investigation is gaining speed in Congress, the stench of cover-up has become strong:
The question now, as Mr. Hume so succinctly put it, was who knew what, and when? How high does this go? At this point, it looks like Attorney General Eric Holder's fingerprints are all over this - not just for his role in Gunwalker, but also his not so subtle attempts at obstructing the investigation. Primarily, though, Holder denied long-time knowledge of the program when he gave sworn testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee back in May, but it seems there may have been someperjury "misspeaking" going on (via CNS News):
Is that your final answer, Mr. Holder (via Big Government)?
Please note the inclusion of DEA, FBI and DHS in that 2009 speech, by Holders own admittance. Make no mistake, this thing is huge, and it's not going anywhere. If the mainstream press has a shred of investigative instincts left to them, they will start working this story. Hume's comments are right, this does have the air of a Watergate. But bigger.
So far it looks like We the People might be needing some pretty top-level positions filled in the coming months. DoJ for sure. Holder's goose is cooked, and it's only a matter of time until he is either pressured by President Obama or has a 'moment of clarity' and resigns. How high up in DHS - all the way to Napolitano? What about the FBI? Higher? As the above referenced Pajamas Media piece so aptly put it:
Does it go all the way to the top? Only time and a lot more investigation will tell. You can be sure there will have to be some pretty concrete evidence to even think of directly implicating the President in this thing (please note Owens' use of "team" when describing who fashioned Obama's rhetoric), so don't plan on DVRing an Obama "I am not a crook" moment any time soon. But there is a lesson here already, and we're no where near the end of this journey. The lesson here is that these are the policies we get when the policy makers follow the teachings of Cloward/Piven and Saul Alinsky. This is a textbook illustration of a worst-case scenario result to an "ends justify the means" method of policy decisions, right down to the innocent blood on the hands of the decision makers.
Keep your eye on this story, folks. By the time Issa is done with his investigation, the administration may never be the same.
UPDATE: And so it begins.
It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that the guns President Obama spoke of regulating back in 2009 - AK-47 type assault rifles and Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifles - are at the heart of the violent crisis on the border and are the very guns involved in Gunwalker (Pajamas Media has a great back story on this theory). In fact, this operation is such a catastrophe that the Mexican government is demanding answers. Having lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 agents to those weapons over the past eighteen months, you can't really blame them.
Initial attempts at keeping the blame limited to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) only have failed miserably. As more sun shines down on this ugly piece of business, more agencies are shown to have their fingers in the pie. It's a veritable vegetable soup - ATF, DEA, FBI, DHS and DoJ. Can you spell "C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N"?
The premise of the operation was simple: track weapons dealers and the path of the guns they bought over the border and into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. These sorts of stings are done frequently by law enforcement officers around the country. Because these guns were going to be tracked across the southern border the operation was put into the hands of the ATF, with oversight by the Department of Justice. Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
Yeah, not so much.
First off, the "dealers" they were tracking turned out to be FBI informants already. Ooopsie. Which means the main premise for the operation was moot from the get-go. But fear not, they still poured two years, $10 million and countless man hours into the endeavor. Oh, and the life of one border patrol agent and several thousand Mexican citizens, not that they count in the grand scheme. Ah, the gentle efficiencies of the government juggernaut....
Second, for some reason no one has been able to explain, ATF was told to cease surveillance of the approximately 1,765 guns once they left the hands of the dealers. They were not to follow them on their trip across the border to their final destination, they were not to gather intel on the final buyer and they were not to work with the Mexican government on the sting. The official line is that the ATF (aka "The Scapegoat") "lost track of" the weapons. In reality, there are memos and sworn testimony that show that the ATF was instructed to cease surveillance of the weapons. ATF Director Kenneth Melson (aka "The Patsy") isn't exactly willing to take the fall, as his secret testimony shows.
By the way, did I mention this wonderful $10 million program was funded by the stimulus bill (just for that extra dollop of outrage). Unfortunately this operation might possibly end up being one of the biggest job creators in that boondoggle of a bill. Just think of all the additional police, border agents, forensics personnel, nurses, doctors, paramedics, undertakers, coffin makers and gravestone carvers who saw a big jump in demand as a direct result of Fast and Furious.
Now that the scandal is starting to gain traction in the press and the investigation is gaining speed in Congress, the stench of cover-up has become strong:
The question now, as Mr. Hume so succinctly put it, was who knew what, and when? How high does this go? At this point, it looks like Attorney General Eric Holder's fingerprints are all over this - not just for his role in Gunwalker, but also his not so subtle attempts at obstructing the investigation. Primarily, though, Holder denied long-time knowledge of the program when he gave sworn testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee back in May, but it seems there may have been some
At the May 3 Judiciary Committee hearing, Issa asked Holder: “When did you first know about the program officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?”
Holder responded: “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
Is that your final answer, Mr. Holder (via Big Government)?
(...) the problem with Holder’s feigned ignorance is that he gave a speech in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, in which he boasted about Operation “Gunrunner” and told Mexican authorities of everything he was doing to insure its success.
Holder told the audience:
Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.
Please note the inclusion of DEA, FBI and DHS in that 2009 speech, by Holders own admittance. Make no mistake, this thing is huge, and it's not going anywhere. If the mainstream press has a shred of investigative instincts left to them, they will start working this story. Hume's comments are right, this does have the air of a Watergate. But bigger.
So far it looks like We the People might be needing some pretty top-level positions filled in the coming months. DoJ for sure. Holder's goose is cooked, and it's only a matter of time until he is either pressured by President Obama or has a 'moment of clarity' and resigns. How high up in DHS - all the way to Napolitano? What about the FBI? Higher? As the above referenced Pajamas Media piece so aptly put it:
At the same time in 2009 that federal law enforcement agencies (the ATF, the DOJ, and presumably Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security) were creating the operation that led to the executive branch being the largest gun smuggler in the Southwest, the president’s team was crafting the rhetoric to sell the crisis they were creating.
On television, in various news outlets, and even in a joint appearance with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama pushed the 90 percent lie, implying that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexican cartel violence came from U.S. gun shops.
At the same time they were damning gun dealers in public, the administration was secretly forcing them to provide weapons to the cartels, by the armful and without oversight. More than one gun industry insider suggests that the administration extorted cooperation and silence from these gun shops. As the ATF has the power to summarily shut dealers down for the most minor of offenses, that is very, very possible.
Does it go all the way to the top? Only time and a lot more investigation will tell. You can be sure there will have to be some pretty concrete evidence to even think of directly implicating the President in this thing (please note Owens' use of "team" when describing who fashioned Obama's rhetoric), so don't plan on DVRing an Obama "I am not a crook" moment any time soon. But there is a lesson here already, and we're no where near the end of this journey. The lesson here is that these are the policies we get when the policy makers follow the teachings of Cloward/Piven and Saul Alinsky. This is a textbook illustration of a worst-case scenario result to an "ends justify the means" method of policy decisions, right down to the innocent blood on the hands of the decision makers.
Keep your eye on this story, folks. By the time Issa is done with his investigation, the administration may never be the same.
UPDATE: And so it begins.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
ARIZONA ON TRIAL
The federal case against the state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over SB1070 has officially begun. The feds are busily arguing their case, citing the Constitution's supremacy clause. This is the crux of the Holder DoJ's case. They argued racism in the press, but have chosen to go with what they considered to be the more solid argument of preemption in court.
Preemption means that the state of Arizona is allegedly stepping on federal toes with their immigration law. The feds are arguing SB1070 is unconstitutional because federal law overrides it, according to the supremacy clause; they further assert that only the federal government is capable of and lawfully allowed to pursue immigration enforcement. It seems the judge, Susan Bolton, is having a hard time reconciling that line of attack (via the Washington Post):
The DoJ's stance that immigration enforcement is strictly the purview of the federal government was their primary argument today:
The state pushed back on this assumption:
Mr. Kneedler also argued that the law is detrimental to foreign relations:
Brewer's lawyer, Mr. Bouma, shrugged off the foreign policy claims:
It is, however, a promising start for the beleaguered state.
Preemption means that the state of Arizona is allegedly stepping on federal toes with their immigration law. The feds are arguing SB1070 is unconstitutional because federal law overrides it, according to the supremacy clause; they further assert that only the federal government is capable of and lawfully allowed to pursue immigration enforcement. It seems the judge, Susan Bolton, is having a hard time reconciling that line of attack (via the Washington Post):
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"
The DoJ's stance that immigration enforcement is strictly the purview of the federal government was their primary argument today:
"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom.
The state pushed back on this assumption:
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."
Mr. Kneedler also argued that the law is detrimental to foreign relations:
He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said
Brewer's lawyer, Mr. Bouma, shrugged off the foreign policy claims:
"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.
"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."Today marked the opening salvo on this highly charged issue, but there is no doubt there will be more to come. Although the judge seems to be questioning the main point of the federal case, it doesn't mean Arizona and Brewer have won yet.
It is, however, a promising start for the beleaguered state.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
PRESUMPTION OF GUILT
When Eric Holder and the Obama Administration took their position on trying terrorists in civilian courts, the main reasons they gave for doing it were to showcase the fairness of the US justice system and to help restore America's standing in the world.
Noble aspirations, indeed.
Too bad the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, sees the KSM trial in this way (via CNSNews):
Luckily America isn't a third world country (yet), or the rest of the world might think our much touted legal system was more like a kangaroo court. No doubt assuring the execution of a major figure in the jihadist world before he even goes to trial will do plenty towards winning our enemies over, too.
If Gitmo is a recruiting tool, what do you think this fiasco will be?
Way to up our standing, guys.
Noble aspirations, indeed.
Too bad the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, sees the KSM trial in this way (via CNSNews):
On Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked Gibbs, “The vice president (Joe Biden) said on Meet the Press that he guarantees that KSM (Khalid Sheik Mohammed) would not be acquitted. Isn't part of a civilian trial presumed innocent?”
Gibbs said, “Yes.”
CNSNews.com then asked, “And does the administration believe that he (KSM) is presumed innocent?”
Gibbs answered, “The administration is in charge of presenting the case against an individual that killed 3,000 people on American soil. I not only think he'll be convicted, I think he'll be executed for his crimes.”
In a follow-up question, CNSNews.com asked, “Can you make that guarantee though?”
Gibbs replied, “I think he’s going to be executed for his crime.”
Luckily America isn't a third world country (yet), or the rest of the world might think our much touted legal system was more like a kangaroo court. No doubt assuring the execution of a major figure in the jihadist world before he even goes to trial will do plenty towards winning our enemies over, too.
If Gitmo is a recruiting tool, what do you think this fiasco will be?
Way to up our standing, guys.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
MY CONGRESSMAN REALLY IS NUTS
My idiot congressman, Alan Grayson, is making an ass of himself yet again (via HotAir).
This time, however, instead of just being an insufferable ass, he is actually trying to get a private citizen fined and put in jail. What is the offense, you ask? The creation and support of one of my favorite websites, My congressman is nuts.com.
Yes, Grayson has demanded the DOJ investigate, fine and imprison Angie Langley of Clermont, FL.
He is accusing her of lying to federal elections by saying she is a constituent of his, when Clermont is not in his district. He seems to be claiming that she has started a political action committee (he calls it her 'committee' in his letter to AG Eric Holder) against him and should not be allowed to because she isn't really a constituent of his.
BTW, how rich is it that he is accusing Ms. Langley of being "utterly tasteless and juvenile"? Pot, meet kettle.
As a political blogger, this concerns me greatly. If the DOJ decides to honor Grayson's demand, it sets up a rather frightening precedent. I am not a constituent of Nancy Pelosi's but I criticize her frequently - does that mean she will be able to put me in jail for it? Or am I safe because my forum is the Ripley Report, not Queen Nancy is Insane or Pelosi is Power Drunk?
Many people will scoff at this, saying Holder wouldn't waste his time with something like this. But let's remember that Holder is the man who has thrown out convictions against New Black Panther Party members, ordered the refunding of ACORN and is planning a three ring circus in NYC with the unnecessary, inappropriate civil trial of mass murdering terrorists who were captured on the battlefield. His idea of 'justice' is horribly skewed, so don't be surprised if he finds merit in Grayson's claims.
The fact that one of our elected officials is actively trying to imprison a private citizen for speaking out against him should not be forgotten. The power grab of the democrats in this administration is reaching truly alarming proportions.
It seems 'Teacups' Grayson has morphed into the Queen of Hearts, shouting 'Off with her head' at the least transgression.
In my opinion, he is more like the Mad Hatter, and I personally can't wait to cast my vote next year and get his looney toons butt out of Congress.
And Mr. Grayson, if you want to come after me for using my right to free speech, bring it on.
This time, however, instead of just being an insufferable ass, he is actually trying to get a private citizen fined and put in jail. What is the offense, you ask? The creation and support of one of my favorite websites, My congressman is nuts.com.
Yes, Grayson has demanded the DOJ investigate, fine and imprison Angie Langley of Clermont, FL.
He is accusing her of lying to federal elections by saying she is a constituent of his, when Clermont is not in his district. He seems to be claiming that she has started a political action committee (he calls it her 'committee' in his letter to AG Eric Holder) against him and should not be allowed to because she isn't really a constituent of his.
BTW, how rich is it that he is accusing Ms. Langley of being "utterly tasteless and juvenile"? Pot, meet kettle.
As a political blogger, this concerns me greatly. If the DOJ decides to honor Grayson's demand, it sets up a rather frightening precedent. I am not a constituent of Nancy Pelosi's but I criticize her frequently - does that mean she will be able to put me in jail for it? Or am I safe because my forum is the Ripley Report, not Queen Nancy is Insane or Pelosi is Power Drunk?
Many people will scoff at this, saying Holder wouldn't waste his time with something like this. But let's remember that Holder is the man who has thrown out convictions against New Black Panther Party members, ordered the refunding of ACORN and is planning a three ring circus in NYC with the unnecessary, inappropriate civil trial of mass murdering terrorists who were captured on the battlefield. His idea of 'justice' is horribly skewed, so don't be surprised if he finds merit in Grayson's claims.
The fact that one of our elected officials is actively trying to imprison a private citizen for speaking out against him should not be forgotten. The power grab of the democrats in this administration is reaching truly alarming proportions.
It seems 'Teacups' Grayson has morphed into the Queen of Hearts, shouting 'Off with her head' at the least transgression.
In my opinion, he is more like the Mad Hatter, and I personally can't wait to cast my vote next year and get his looney toons butt out of Congress.
And Mr. Grayson, if you want to come after me for using my right to free speech, bring it on.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
THE VOICE OF REASON FROM...LINDSEY GRAHAM?
Let me be frank - I'm not a huge fan of Lindsey Graham. I think he is one of those wishy-washy RINO types that have helped the liberals with their progressive agenda.
But every now and then, he surprises me.
Eric Holder looked like a deer in headlights, could not defend his decision to try KSM 6 blocks from the scene of his act of war, and did nothing to convince Americans that criminal trials are the way to go.
It is becoming more and more apparent that this whole exercise is a back-door route to trying the Bush administration and the CIA for war crimes. This isn't about proving KSM's guilt. That was done when he confessed. Because of that confession, there shouldn't even be a trial. And yet, there is.
Holder and Obama are quite convinced he will be found guilty. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that predetermining the outcome, much like a kangaroo court? And why, exactly, do you need to find him guilty? He already admitted he is! Yes, Mr. Holder, the evidence against KSM is overwhelming - he entered a guilty plea. But, then again, this is the guy who allowed a guilty verdict against New Black Panther Party voter intimidators to be thrown out with no explaination whatsoever, so nothing his department has done so far has made much sense.
Criminal courts have way too many loopholes to let off the criminal - such as officials assuring the public of not just a guilty verdict, but a death penalty guilty verdict before the trial even begins. Apparently Obama and Holder have forgotten that whole 'presumption of innocence' thing - or maybe they think it is actually 'presumption of guilt'. Is that part of the 'change' we were sold during the election last year?
Sen. Graham is absolutely right - this is BAD history that Holder and Obama are making. In their asinine quest to 'showcase' the American court system, they are showing the world that America is okay with kangaroo show trials. That is NOT the American way. This scenario smacks more of Chavez's socialist Venezuela than the United States.
They are also making NYC a target again, and costing the city, which is already deep in the red, an estimated $75 million in added security costs. The trauma the people of New York suffered will be revisited for as long as this trial lasts - which may be years, if some analysts are right. That trauma will be amplified by the anxiety of a potential al-Quaeda strike.
Even if al-Quaeda doesn't strike, our criminal trial process will put information at KSM's (and, by extension al-Quaeda) fingertips that a terrorist of his caliber simply shouldn't have.
Put simply, Obama is allowing Holder to compromise our security to go on a Bush administration/CIA witch hunt.
This is an absolute travesty and must be stopped. Kudos to Sen. Graham for recognizing that and calling it what it is.
But every now and then, he surprises me.
Eric Holder looked like a deer in headlights, could not defend his decision to try KSM 6 blocks from the scene of his act of war, and did nothing to convince Americans that criminal trials are the way to go.
It is becoming more and more apparent that this whole exercise is a back-door route to trying the Bush administration and the CIA for war crimes. This isn't about proving KSM's guilt. That was done when he confessed. Because of that confession, there shouldn't even be a trial. And yet, there is.
Holder and Obama are quite convinced he will be found guilty. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that predetermining the outcome, much like a kangaroo court? And why, exactly, do you need to find him guilty? He already admitted he is! Yes, Mr. Holder, the evidence against KSM is overwhelming - he entered a guilty plea. But, then again, this is the guy who allowed a guilty verdict against New Black Panther Party voter intimidators to be thrown out with no explaination whatsoever, so nothing his department has done so far has made much sense.
Criminal courts have way too many loopholes to let off the criminal - such as officials assuring the public of not just a guilty verdict, but a death penalty guilty verdict before the trial even begins. Apparently Obama and Holder have forgotten that whole 'presumption of innocence' thing - or maybe they think it is actually 'presumption of guilt'. Is that part of the 'change' we were sold during the election last year?
Sen. Graham is absolutely right - this is BAD history that Holder and Obama are making. In their asinine quest to 'showcase' the American court system, they are showing the world that America is okay with kangaroo show trials. That is NOT the American way. This scenario smacks more of Chavez's socialist Venezuela than the United States.
They are also making NYC a target again, and costing the city, which is already deep in the red, an estimated $75 million in added security costs. The trauma the people of New York suffered will be revisited for as long as this trial lasts - which may be years, if some analysts are right. That trauma will be amplified by the anxiety of a potential al-Quaeda strike.
Even if al-Quaeda doesn't strike, our criminal trial process will put information at KSM's (and, by extension al-Quaeda) fingertips that a terrorist of his caliber simply shouldn't have.
Put simply, Obama is allowing Holder to compromise our security to go on a Bush administration/CIA witch hunt.
This is an absolute travesty and must be stopped. Kudos to Sen. Graham for recognizing that and calling it what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)