Terrorist Criminal Trials and the Coming Jihad

Philobeado

Gold Member
Apr 8, 2009
566
174
178
Gulf of Mexico Coast, Texas
Look what happened the last time al-Qaeda terrorists and their attorneys got a hold of the discovery process.

After the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi, the police found amid the belongings of one of the perpetrators a list of the unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York. The list was submitted to the lawyers for the defendant, Sheik Abdel Rahman, and signed by Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney. Under the rules of discovery in a criminal trial, the defendant had every right to the list. If you read through the names of the unindicted co-conspirators, one will jump off the page and grab your attention. It is Number 95: Osama bin Laden.


If ever you needed a reason why terrorists must be dealt with as foreign combatants and not as criminals, it would have stared you in the face throughout the discovery process of Sheik Rahman's trial. But there's more. Rahman's activist attorney, Lynne Stewart, used her position to pass information from the cleric to his terrorist followers in Egypt. She was later disbarred and sentenced to twenty-eight months in prison.


Stewart is not an anomaly. Radical lawyers bent on using the legal system to further a political agenda will be falling all over themselves to represent the five alleged terrorists who will now stand trial in New York City. These lawyers will put American foreign policy on trial for the events of September 11, 2001. In putting September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators into the criminal justice system, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama have given the jihadists a once-in-a-lifetime stage for their propaganda.


What then possessed the Obama administration to ignore the obvious and resolve to try these defendants in civil and not military proceedings? It most certainly is not to showcase the American justice system to the world. In a consummate act of legal stupidity, both the president and the attorney general have announced to the world that not only are the defendants guilty, but they will also be sentenced to death. If ever a national jury pool was tainted, this one is. In the Islamic world, no one remotely sympathetic to the defendants could ignore the hypocrisy of this conduct.


Obama is willing to compromise intelligence and provide the jihadists with a propaganda platform because he needs to placate the extremist elements of his political base. By taking these terrorists out of the military's hands and putting them into the criminal justice system, Obama is redefining terrorism as a criminal justice issue and not as irregular warfare. In this, Obama is beginning a process that will reshape the meaning of terrorism to conform with the sympathetic and minimalist notions of leftist ideology.


Terrorist trials in the media capital of the world will be a magnet for the inspired publicity of jihadism. All terrorism finds its inspiration in violence as theater. The theater in the courtroom will be overshadowed by the inevitable carnage in the streets.


Terrorists have always wanted a lot of people watching, a lot of people asking, "Why?" From Abane Ramdane, who moved the Algerian insurrection against the French out of the anonymous Sahara and into the media-saturated streets of Algiers, to George Habash of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who blew up airplanes, terrorist leaders have thrived on the oxygen of publicity.


It is inconceivable that the jihadists will not find New York during the terrorist criminal trials the perfect place for statements to be written in blood and punctuated by explosions.


Innocent blood will flow in the streets of New York because Obama chose to make a political statement rather than confront the reality of what terrorism is and how it works.


Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and former chairman of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association
American Thinker: Terrorist Criminal Trials and the Coming Jihad
 
yes, there is all that, but do not forget that this is the lefts shot at putting Bush on trial at the same time. It's a stupid , ignorant, political game.
 
Gotta agree Ollie. This is more about politics than anything else. Holder, before he was AG, worked for a company that spent thousands of man hours defending terrorists. Kinda makes you wonder don't it???
 
It is inconceivable that the jihadists will not find New York during the terrorist criminal trials the perfect place for statements to be written in blood and punctuated by explosions.


Innocent blood will flow in the streets of New York because Obama chose to make a political statement rather than confront the reality of what terrorism is and how it works.
Perhaps the New York liberals will change their thinking if this does happen.

At least I don't live in NYC
 
Here's what I don't get: Most people do not realized that we try American citizens everyday in military tribunals. They've been going on for years and the ACLU has never once raised an objection. Who are these Americans? And if the ACLU believes these tribunals are sound and just, then why aren't military tribunals sound, just and fair for terrorists? There is a really good video on Youtube. Search code: SIRxilvPcK8.
 
and heres what I don't get, had Booooooooooooooooooooooooooosh not tortured the cocksuckers , we wouln't be having rthis conversation
 
Supreme Court disagrees with you folks, and it is certainly not a liberal, radical extremist group.
 
It's really a shame that Obama and his Klan doesn't have more respect for the wishes of the American citizen and most of all for the families of those killed and of those injured on 9/11.

If he had no other options it would be different, but the fact is, those who he is hired to serve, have no meaning to him and he doesn't respect them!

Mike
 
Gotta agree Ollie. This is more about politics than anything else. Holder, before he was AG, worked for a company that spent thousands of man hours defending terrorists. Kinda makes you wonder don't it???

There is no "kinda" about it. They left favors the terrorists and the anarchists.
 
Gotta agree Ollie. This is more about politics than anything else. Holder, before he was AG, worked for a company that spent thousands of man hours defending terrorists. Kinda makes you wonder don't it???

when they take photos of the CIA agents and give them to the terrorists? fthere is no wonder! It's real. this is a war against the USA, the military and the CIA and the left is waging it.
 
It is inconceivable that the jihadists will not find New York during the terrorist criminal trials the perfect place for statements to be written in blood and punctuated by explosions.


Innocent blood will flow in the streets of New York because Obama chose to make a political statement rather than confront the reality of what terrorism is and how it works.
Perhaps the New York liberals will change their thinking if this does happen.

At least I don't live in NYC

we've already got the commemerative plates.... thanks anyway....

no blood flows or doesn't flow because we give someone a trial. thinking otherwise is absurd.

they should be tried like timothy mcveigh was tried....

and the blind sheikh...
 
We continue to see above that the far right wingnuts war against the Rule of Law.
 
Go talk to the Supreme Court, not with me. You don't have a valid point, Willow. Not one.
 
Go talk to the Supreme Court, not with me. You don't have a valid point, Willow. Not one.

I think everyone can see who avoided the question.. Here, I'll try again. Military tribunals don't follow the rule of law? Who knew?
 
The Supreme Court has opined on this issue, not you or me. Guess who the SC followed. Certainly not the Bush administration's wants.

Willow, you have lost again. Your desire to be accepted by your peers on your side has led to you ignoring the facts and evidence, such as the SC and military tribunals. Fortunately for you, I will keep bringing you back to the right path.
 
The Supreme Court has opined on this issue, not you or me. Guess who the SC followed. Certainly not the Bush administration's wants.

Willow, you have lost again. Your desire to be accepted by your peers on your side has led to you ignoring the facts and evidence, such as the SC and military tribunals. Fortunately for you, I will keep bringing you back to the right path.

you still didn't answer the question.. do military tribunals follow the rule of law? and as to who loses? put the trials in NYC and we'll see who loses!
 
The questions are irrelevant now. The administration has decided, and we the American people will abide it. Get on board, or be a detriment to the well being of America.

You guys had your chance. You blew it. Move on. Your types are not getting back into power in our lifetimes.
 
The questions are irrelevant now. The administration has decided, and we the American people will abide it. Get on board, or be a detriment to the well being of America.

You guys had your chance. You blew it. Move on. Your types are not getting back into power in our lifetimes.

fuck you jake starkey, fuck you. wanna bet?
 

Forum List

Back
Top