Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) penned a letter to Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggesting military trials would be a more appropriate venue for the accused terrorists.
“As a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue,” Skelton wrote. …
“The decision to terminate the prosecution of these self-confessed terrorists in military commissions, transfer them to the United States, and bring them into a federal courthouse for trial raises many serious questions which I would like you both to address in a full committee briefing on December 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM,” Skelton requested.

As I’ve said before, Holder’s bowing to the ACLU on this will prove to be one of the most stupid decisions ever made and will put a mess on the plate for Democrats.

Ed Morrissey sums it up:

This is the first significant public pushback from a Democratic Congressman, although some in the Senate expressed at least reservations during Holder’s appearance this week. It probably won’t be the last. After all, it was a Democratic Congress that passed the current military commissions system, working with a Republican President, to find a system that would get the blessing of the Supreme Court while maintaining security for our war efforts in intelligence. Without the Democrats in 2007, there would have been no military commissions system at all. That default would have forced KSM and everyone else at Gitmo into federal court eventually, an outcome that few wanted to see … at least in 2007.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

Good deal. We would be adding 12-20 million illegal aliens on the the federal health care roles if the Democrats health system legislation passes. 12-20 million who will be on the welfare role, who will want free money, who will demand free services, overload our schools and medical systems, etc and so on. By about February, we should start hearing the stories out of our southwestern states about massive numbers of people illegally crossing the borders and people overstaying their visas.

In an address at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, Ms. Napolitano sought to dispel any notion that the administration — with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda — might postpone the most contentious piece of an immigration overhaul until after midterm elections next November.

Liberal policy group? They are a massively far left group, about as far left as one can get. To put it plainly, this would be like a Bush appointee speaking to the neo-Nazi group Stormfront.

You really can’t call these folks in the White House liberals. That is insulting to liberals. They are completely tone deaf to the American People, and are basically telling you, the American People, to STFU and GFYS with all their policies.

I wonder how many Islamic terrorists will be provided blanket amnesty as they sneak into our country, just in time for KSM’s trial?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.

As Jammie Wearing Fool points out, this is going to create a massive circus, one in which the defense will not be able to defend the actions of their client, but use the trial as a way of bashing Bush and the GWoT. What will happen with the secret information gained from KSM? Will we tell the world all about our means and methods, meaning Al Qaeda will know? And, can you imagine if the prosecutors lose the case?

But Obama the administration will prosecute Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — the detainee accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen — and several other detainees before a military commission, the official said.

Hmm, that happened under a different president. Anyone remember what Party he was a part of? The memory is eluding me this morning.

The decisions to give civilian prosecutors detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks and keep the case of the Cole attack within the military system are expected to be announced at the Department of Justice later on Friday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that news conference has not yet taken place.

The Fish Wrap of Record’s only attempt to find a rational for this is some mealy mouthed idiocy about closing Gitmo. They apparently have no interest in knowing why the difference in treatment.

On the flip side, it might be very interesting to have KSM on the stand explaining how Democrat weakness during the Clinton years (remember when OBL called America a “paper tiger” not long after he, as head of al Qaeda, declared war against America?) for all to hear.

Ed Morrissey:

What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away? If that happens, look for a massive amount of anger to overwhelm the naive Commander in Chief. And if Obama isn’t prepared to let them walk after a potential acquittal, then it makes a mockery of the criminal trial, and of the justice system itself.
These terrorists belong at a military tribunal, not the justice system employed for Americans to judge other Americans for civil criminal conduct. Instead of giving these men the oblivion they deserve, we’re incentivizing further attacks on the US by giving them the biggest possible PR platform. We may as well put them on TV and call it Dancing With the Terrorists, or So You Want To Be A Jihadist Martyr.

More: Michelle Malkin writes

If this White House thought Tea Party activists were an “angry mob,” wait until they see the backlash from 9/11 family members and their supporters nationwide. We’re not going to sit down and shut up about the reckless, security-undermining Obama 9/10 agenda and conflict-of-interest-ridden AG Eric Holder.

I wonder how Obama will insult the 9/11 family members when they rightfully go ballistic? There is also a petition to President Neophyte.

Another thought occurs: trying KSM and the others in NYC will create a legal appeal nightmare for years, if not over a decade. The defense will say there is no way for them to get a fair trial, etc and so on.

As I am adding on to this, I am listening to Holder’s PC, and he says they will shoot for the death penalty.

Double More: Not trying to go all Glenn Greenwald with the updates, but, a few more thoughts occur. 1st, how did the Obama admin come to this decision? Who was involved? I suspect it was more of a political meeting which revolved around “hey, look at us, we are going to bring these guys to justice, and what better place than NYC,” with no one in the GroupThink saying “yeah, not such a great idea.”

Also, this looks more like a distraction event. Things have not been looking rosy for Barack as of late, even with the passage of the health destruction bill in the House, so, they throw this out on a Friday morning, hold some press conferences, and try and look tough and wise. Consider that there were no concrete timelines involved. KSM could be sitting around in Gitmo for years before being moved to NYC, if ever.

The families are not happy

Debra Burlingame, the sister of a pilot whose plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, said in a statement that “the trial will be a travesty.” She supports military trials for Mohammed and four other defendants.

“In open court, it will be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will hold forth,” she said, “mocking his victims, exulting in the suffering of their families, ridiculing the judge, his lawyers and the American justice system, and worst of all, rallying his jihad brothers to kill more Americans.”

and

“To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having US constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and its never been done before,” Ed Kowalski of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America Foundation told AFP on Friday.

“We feel that that’s a terrible mistake.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Burdened by a decision on Afghanistan, Obama has apparently sent military planners back to the drawing boards to redesign a strategy in the wake of concerns about the ability of Hamid Karzai’s government to serve as a viable partner. He’s also worried about a jobless economic recovery

So before leaving, the president announced a jobs summit at the White House in December, at which CEOs, union leaders, nonprofits and government officials can figure out how to jump-start the lagging business indicator.

Hot Air has the relevant transcript

Over the past 10 months, we’ve taken a number of bold steps to break the back of this recession (WT-none of which have worked). We’ve worked to stabilize the financial system, revive lending to small businesses and families, and prevent responsible homeowners from losing their homes. And through the Recovery Act, we’ve cut taxes for middle class families, extended and increased unemployment insurance, and created and saved more than a million jobs.

Worked to take over huge segments of the private economy and put them under the control of the Federal government. People are still losing their homes. Small business is still having a tough time getting loans. And taxes? Where? Hey, didn’t he promise us a $500/$1,000 check during the campaign?

As a result, the economy is now growing again for the first time in more than a year — and faster than at any time in the past two years. But even though we’ve slowed the loss of jobs — and today’s report on the continued decline in unemployment claims is a hopeful sign — the economic growth that we’ve seen has not yet led to the job growth that we desperately need. As I’ve said from the start of this crisis, hiring often takes time to catch up to economic growth. And given the magnitude of the economic turmoil that we’ve experienced, employers are reluctant to hire.

Slowed because there aren’t that many jobs left to lose. I’m not blaming him fully for that, recessions happen. But, Los Federales can mitigate and reduce the issue with wise business plans.

We all know that there are limits to what government can and should do, even during such difficult times.  But we have an obligation to consider every additional, responsible step that we can [take] to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country.  And that’s why, in December, we’ll be holding a forum at the White House on jobs and economic growth.  We’ll gather CEOs and small business owners, economists and financial experts, as well as representatives from labor unions and nonprofit groups, to talk about how we can work together to create jobs and get this economy moving again.

Oh, good, labor unions and nonprofits. Ed Morrissey is pointing out that labor unions tend to be job killers, and nonprofits? They do not really tend to stimulate much. They can be useful, certainly, but companies looking to make a profit get people back to work. And you do not do that by yammering on and on. You take action.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.

The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.

And not long after CBS News made that pronouncement, CNN and Bloomberg, among others, called BS on it, forcing CBS to print

Editor’s note, 9:57 p.m. EDT: The White House has issued the following response to this story, attributed to White House National Security Advisor James Jones:

“Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources.”

He’ll get around to deciding when he decides it is time to make a decision on deciding. Remember this artwork Barry bought for the White House?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Q What exactly has the President taken away from all these meetings that he’s had? This is the seventh one he’s had, today. If you could shed some light on what he’s — how he’s processing this, how he’s keeping this — what does he talk with his other advisors about after he comes out of these meetings? And ultimately, have you decided — and how will you have him explain this to the American people?

MR. GIBBS: Let me take the second one. We have not, in all honestly, had extensive conversations about that yet. I do believe, without getting into specifics, I think the President strongly believes that it’s important for the American people and for the international community to know his reasoning behind whatever decision he makes, and to clearly explain our goals and objectives in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and the region as a whole.

So I anticipate that whatever form it ultimately takes, the President will use the occasion to explain some of that to the American people so that they understand his decision-making and his thought process.

In terms –

Q. A TV address or something, to the nation?

MR. GIBBS: Again, we haven’t gotten into broad specifics on that yet.

On the first part, Jeff, you know, look, I think — I don’t — I used to have it calculated, I should just go back and do it, the number of hours that he has spent in these meetings is probably now — well, at the end of today will probably be getting close to 20 direct hours of his time. The group — the principals that meet with the President additionally take time to get the material ready, and are prepared to answer questions for the President, probably at least twice as much of that of the President’s time the principals have spent.

He’s been president since January. Over 6,700 hours. And, as of October 20th, not even 20 hours spent discussing Afghanistan? Someone should ask Gibbs how many hours Obama has spent campaigning since his Coronation.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.

Most Republicans will vote no, if they know what is good for their political careers, much less their constituents. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) could face some very stiff competition come 2014 for his support of this craptacular legislation for this fake issue.

So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants.

In other words, bribes that are things we should be doing already. Bribes that will be forgotten by Democrats minutes after the passage of a cap and tax bill. Bribes that could actually be over-written with legislation after cap and tax is passed.

“There is nowhere near 60 votes for a nuclear power bill on its own. There’s not 60 votes for a cap-and-trade bill as it’s currently constructed,” Graham said in an interview. He said combining the two measures is “the only way you’ll get to 60 votes.”

Democrats have been whining about “clean energy” for years. France uses a majority of nuclear energy. Why can’t we? Nuclear energy would seem a slam dunk. But, this whole charade is not about “going green,” but about control of countries, economies, and private citizens. Because the science is not “settled.” If anything, more and more information comes out as scientists feel emboldened to actually go against the Approved Doctrine. Two researchers at MIT have cast doubts on the UN IPCC climate modeling. A team of scientists have sent a letter saying that consensus is fake.

But, just remember: if we don’t “do something,” puppies will drown and bunnies will die. And all you skeptics are child murderers. Which is why governments, such as the Australian one, try to gag publications. It’s for your own good, especially when they lie about the overall costs. And if you are a big climate polluter, you should be treated like a murderer.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Afghan election officials canceled a presidential runoff and proclaimed the reelection of President Hamid Karzai on Monday, a day after Karzai’s top challenger declared he would not take part in a second round of voting scheduled for Saturday because of a persistent risk of fraud.

(Election commission chairman Azizullah) Lodin said that after consulting legal experts, the seven-member commission had decided by consensus to cancel the runoff and declare Karzai the winner of a second five-year term.

Peppered with questions about how the commission reached its conclusion, Lodin said, “It’s like a wrestling match. If one wrestler refuses to wrestle, the referee raises the hand of the other and declares him the winner.”

So, what does Obama do now?

Sunday, senior White House aides said President Obama likely will take some more weeks to decide whether to send more troops to Afghanistan and to decide on the strategy to pursue against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

“I expect the president will make a decision within weeks. As you know, he has gone through a very rigorous process because the goal here is not just to make an arithmetic judgment about the number of troops, but to make sure that we have the right strategy to reach our goal,” Mr. Axelrod said.

In Obama Speak, that means it will be months before any decision is made. I doubt if they can hold off till the 2010 mid-terms, coming up with some plan that makes Democrats look good, but, my prediction is an announcement on some Friday in January when there is a really big snow storm across the country. Something quiet and buried.

With the White House’s reluctant embrace on Sunday of Hamid Karzai as the winner of Afghanistan’s suddenly moot presidential runoff, President Obama now faces a new complication: enabling a badly tarnished partner to regain enough legitimacy to help the United States find the way out of an eight-year-old war.

In other words, the Fish Wrap of Record is saying what we all know: Obama is looking for a way to cut and run. Progressives would love for him to do just that. They are already upset with Obama for failing to immediately pull all the troops out of Iraq. Instead, Obama has basically stuck with the Bush Plan.

In the early days of Mr. Obama’s presidency, he and his aides searched desperately for a plausible alternative to Mr. Karzai. They found none. Since the spring, there has been little doubt that Mr. Karzai would remain in the presidential palace after the election was over. The question was whether that vote would demonstrate that a desolate nation that has always been at the mercy of larger powers would show it could find its own way.

In fact, the Obama admin. treated Karzai poorly on multiple occasions.

So, what do they do now? Obama is learning that actually being The Man in charge is a far fry from being a great campaigner. He has done his level best to vote “Present” during his first 10 months as President, but, some decisions must be made. Timeliness is rather important. Surely, there must be tons of plans over at the Pentagon. FYI for Obama, that is that big building over in Arlington with all the folks in military uniforms. The subway can take you right there.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats, the White House and Congressional leaders are weighing options for narrowing the gap, including a bipartisan commission that could force tax increases and spending cuts.

Spending cuts? Good luck with that. Whatever they do cut will have about as much meaning as the $100 million he cut from his $3.5 trillion budget. But, Democrats never met a tax they did not like. They will surely allow the 2001/2003 tax cuts to expire in full, and not pass any legislation to make Obama’s “if you make less then $250k, your taxes will not go up one dime” promise go away. Obama’s promise of a “tax cut for 95% of working Americans” has yet to be taken up, and certainly won’t be considered.

And any Republican who decides to work with Democrats on raising taxes might as well resign. Lefties and others can whine about “ideological purity,” but, if a Republican wants to raise taxes, they aren’t Republicans, much less Conservatives.

As far as the taxes go, they are already looking at nickle and dime types, such as the soda tax. They considered an increase in the federal gas tax. Just a bit more tax on alcohol. You name it, they will find a way to tax it.

But even the idea of a panel to bridge the partisan divide has run into partisan objections. Many Democrats, including in the White House, are loath to cede such far-reaching decisions to a commission and doubt Republicans’ willingness to compromise. And most Republicans remain adamantly opposed to tax increases, leaving the prospects for any bipartisan approach limited at best.

What the White House and Congressional Democrats want is political cover, which they will not get.

The proponents, however, are pressing for a Senate vote this month. “If we have the same process and the same people, we are going to get the same results,” said Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, who recently met with Mr. Obama to discuss the idea. “The Democratic Party wants to spend more than we can afford; the Republican Party tends to want to cut taxes more than we can afford. So we are stuck.”

The Republican Party believes that the People should keep the majority of the money they earn. Democrats believe the money the People earn is the governments.

The main driver of long-term deficits is the chasm between the benefit programs Medicare and Medicaid, which are growing faster than the economy, and federal tax collections, which are at one of their lowest levels in many decades relative to the size of the economy.

So, by all means, let’s create more federally run health systems.

When those of us in Real Life have money issues, we (usually) cut back and live within our budget. Government, particularly Democrats, should learn to do the same. Raising taxes will reduce spending through the economy.

Just remember

And

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Congress and the Obama administration are about to take up one of the most fundamental issues stemming from the near collapse of the financial system last year — how to deal with institutions that are so big that the government has no choice but to rescue them when they get in trouble.

Sounds reasonable, right? When these huge private institutions fail, it harms lots and lots of Americans. So, what’s the answer?

A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.

That, by definition, would be Socialism, where the Government is seizing the means of production.

The official said the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, was planning to endorse the changes in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.

Shocking, I know!

The White House plan as outlined so far would already make it much more costly to be a large financial company whose failure would put the financial system and the economy at risk. It would force such institutions to hold more money in reserve and make it harder for them to borrow too heavily against their assets.

Setting up the equivalent of living wills for corporations, that plan would require that they come up with their own procedure to be disentangled in the event of a crisis, a plan that administration officials say ought to be made public in advance.

So, what you have is the “don’t call him a Socialist” president creating plans and legislation for the Federal government to actually become involved in the running of private companies before they get into any trouble.

Feel better about which way your Freedoms are heading?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post