Posts Tagged “terrorism”

Attorney General Eric Holder Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington, D.C. ~ Wednesday, November 18, 2009
gitmo 9 11 top terrorists

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York for trial in a civilian federal court... The four others are Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali

When I appeared before this committee in January for my confirmation hearing, I laid out several goals for my time as Attorney General: to protect the security of the American people, (Bush cards played in first breaths) restore the integrity of the Department of Justice, reinvigorate the Department’s traditional mission, and most of all, to make decisions based on the facts and the law, with no regard for politics. In my first oversight hearing in June, I described my early approach to these issues. (Fat chance of that with you at the helm and Obama looking over your shoulder)

Five months later, we are deeply immersed in the challenges of the day, moving forward to make good on my promises to the committee and the president’s promises to the American people.

First and foremost, we are working day and night to protect the American people. Due to the vigilance of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, we have uncovered and averted a number of serious threats to domestic and international security. Recent arrests in New York, Chicago, Springfield, and Dallas, are evidence of our success in identifying nascent plots and stopping would-be attackers before they strike.

Violence can still occur, however, as evidenced by the recent tragic shootings (jihad terror attack) at Fort Hood. We mourn the deaths of 13 brave Americans, including Dr. Libardo Caraveo, a psychologist with the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons who had been recalled to active duty. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is working diligently to help gather evidence that will be used by military prosecutors in the upcoming trial of the individual who is alleged to have committed this heinous act. (of terror)

We are also seeking to learn from this incident to prevent its reoccurrence. Future dangerousness is notoriously difficult to predict. The president has ordered a full review to determine if there was more that could have been done to prevent the tragedy that unfolded in Texas two weeks ago. We have briefed the chairman and ranking member of this committee and other congressional leaders on our efforts, and will continue to keep Congress abreast of this review.

My written statement addresses a number of other issues before the Department, but I would like to use the rest of the time allotted to me today to address a topic that I know is on many of your minds – my decision last week to refer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others for prosecution in federal courts for their participation in the 9/11 plot.

As I said on Friday, I knew this decision would be controversial. This was a tough call, and reasonable people can disagree with my conclusion that these individuals should be tried in federal court rather than a military commission.

The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law, and they could have been prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions. Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism. Therefore, at the outset of my review of these cases, I had no preconceived views as to the merits of either venue, and in fact on the same day that I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case in the best forum.

I studied this issue extensively. I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. I asked a lot of questions and weighed every alternative. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.

I know there are members of this committee, and members of the public, who have strong feelings on both sides. There are some who disagree with the decision to try the alleged Cole bomber and several others in a military commission, just as there are some who disagree with prosecuting the 9/11 plotters in federal court.

Despite these disagreements, I hope we can have an open, honest, and informed discussion about that decision today, and as part of that discussion, I would like to clear up some of the misinformation that I have seen since Friday.

First, we know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing it for years. There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in Bureau of Prisons custody, including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on our embassies in Africa. Our courts have a long history of handling these cases, and no district has a longer history than the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. I have talked to Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and both he and the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly believe that we can safely hold these trials in New York.

Second, we can protect classified material during trial. The Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA, establishes strict rules and procedures for the use of classified information at trial, and we have used it to protect classified information in a range of terrorism cases. In fact, the standards recently adopted by Congress to govern the use of classified information in military commissions are derived from the very CIPA rules that we use in federal court.

Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions. Before the commissions last year, he declared the proceedings an “inquisition,” condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media, yet few complained at the time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.

Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if KSM makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I’m not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial – and no one else needs to be either.

Fourth, there is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes. And I expect that they will be held in custody under Special Administrative Measures reserved for the most dangerous criminals.

Finally, there are some who have said this decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality, or that we don’t realize this nation is at war. Three weeks ago, I had the honor of joining the President at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of the remains of eighteen Americans, including three DEA agents, who lost their lives to the war in Afghanistan. The brave soldiers and agents carried home on that plane gave their lives to defend this country and its values, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to carry on the work for which they sacrificed.

I know that we are at war.

I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. I have personally witnessed that somber fact in the faces of the families who have lost loved ones abroad, and I have seen it in the daily intelligence stream I review each day. Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.

Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power – civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others – to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.

We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.

In making this and every other decision I have made as Attorney General, my paramount concern is the safety of the American people and the preservation of American values. I am confident this decision meets those goals, and that it will withstand the judgment of history.

Thank you.

————————————————————————————————–

Andy McCarthy —Holder’s friends in the al-Qaeda bar caused the trial delays he now criticizes.

Of all the infuriating aspects of the decision to transfer five 9/11 war criminals to civilian federal court, the one that grates most is the contention that the Obama administration is finally moving forward after “eight years of delay” — as Attorney General Eric Holder put it at his Friday press conference — during which the Bush administration managed to complete only three military-commission trials.

This is chutzpah writ large. The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.)

Almost from the moment President Bush authorized military commissions in 2001, this legion of litigators flooded the courts with habeas corpus petitions, contending that military detention and trials violated the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Geneva Conventions. In 2004, the al-Qaeda bar induced the Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush, to grant enemies a statutory habeas corpus right to challenge their military detention in civilian court. Congress tried to stop them by amending the habeas statute to divest the lower federal courts of jurisdiction in these lawsuits, but the al-Qaeda bar later persuaded the liberal bloc on the Court to ignore that amendment. [Continue reading]

McCarthy also gets some good digs in at Holder’s testimony today here.

Here are some of the Attorney General’s whoppers so far:

1.  The “tragic shooting” at Ft. Hood. What happened at Ft. Hood was a jihadist massacre — a terrorist act, not a tragedy. [...]

Previously:

Um…Holder, who is it that is “cowering in the face” of the “enemy”? [w/ video]

Doc Drop: Unclassified Verbatim Transcript of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad [GITMO]

[Video & Transcript] Obama Past Blast: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Will Get ‘Full Military Trial’

[Full Text] Obama AG Eric Holder Press Conference on Guantanamo Detainees Nov 13 09 & Voices in Opposition

PSA: Sign the letter to President Obama urging him to not bring terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to trial in civilian courts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Today Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In defense of his *cough* Obama’s decision to bring GITMO detainees including self-professed 9/11 master mind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York to be tried in a civilian court.

He stated “We need not cower in the face of this enemy”.

Embedded video

Link @YouTube Link @Breitbart.tv

The enemy that the Obama Administration refuses to name.

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

When looking back at speeches given by Obama he often fails  to mention “Islamic terrorism” by name.

I present some evidence.

Obama Tokyo November 14:

This is a place where the risk of a nuclear arms race threatens the security of the wider world, and where extremists who defile a great religion plan attacks on both our continents.

Obama UN General Assembly Speech 9-23-09

Consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo.  Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world.

If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.

The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith  have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, coordinate law enforcement, and protect our people.

[The Rubin Report] Obama Administration Says: Hooray for Jihad!

This reflection is generated by a major speech just given by John O. Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism advisor. He declares the “war on terrorism” is over and redefines it as a war on al-Qa’ida and its partners.
……
Here are Brennan’s words:

“Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against `jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way–using a legitimate term, `jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal–risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself. And this is why President Obama has confronted this perception directly and forcefully in his speeches to Muslim audiences, declaring that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.”

The U.S. government has now officially defined Jihad as a purifying act taken to achieve a moral goal. In Washington this seems brilliant—we will deny the terrorists the ability to use Islamic symbols and show they are not really properly Muslims but renegades!

Yeah, that will show them, no doubt. But, you see, there’s one problem. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are unconcerned with how the U.S. government defines their religion. The definition of Jihad in practice has been—depending on your viewpoint—either altered or applied much more vigorously during the last few decades.

Most notably Obama’s speech in Cairo, Egypt June 4 2009. to the Muslim world.

And let’s not forget: It’s not a War On Terror, it’s an “Overseas Contingency Operation”

Here’s a damn good question: Why Won’t the Obama Administration Acknowledge We Are at War?

I ask who is cowering in the face of the “enemy”?

Certainly not those who are not afraid to call Islamic terrorism by it’s name.

Which does NOT include the Obama Administration.

I’d like to know who the Obama Administration sees as the enemy. Fox News? Tea Party patriots teabaggers? Right-wing conservatives extremists? Anyone who opposes Obama’s policies? Glenn Beck?

I don’t think there’s any question, that the evidence is now overwhelming in proving beyond a shadow of a doubt,  in the eyes of Team Obama it is they who are the enemy. And it is the Obama Administration who are cowering in the face of the true enemy Islamic terrorism.

Also see:

Transcript: Obama’s Muslim Advisor Dalia Mogahed Defends Sharia Law in Interview With Hizb ut-Tahrir

You think the ongoing scandal with ACORN is bad they also are associated with an anti-Semitic Hezbollah terrorist supporter and propagandist

Previously:

Doc Drop: Unclassified Verbatim Transcript of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad [GITMO]

[Video & Transcript] Obama Past Blast: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Will Get ‘Full Military Trial’

[Full Text] Obama AG Eric Holder Press Conference on Guantanamo Detainees Nov 13 09 & Voices in Opposition

PSA: Sign the letter to President Obama urging him to not bring terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to trial in civilian courts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

The creeping threat of stealth sharia. Inch by inch…day by day they gain more ground.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) literally spits on America and on the 4th of July America’s Independence Day no less! I’m sure the date was specifically chosen to magnify the insult.

Did the leadership of ISNA randomly pick our nation’s Independence Day to hold their event? Islamic scholars openly lecture to not follow man-made holidays created by the Jews and Christians such as Christmas, Easter, Independence Day, etc. In addition, ISNA informs American educators that Muslim children are not encouraged to any allegiance to America, which also includes wearing lapel pins or standing for the pledge of allegiance.

But somehow the covering up of sacred [roll eyes] female muslim hair with an American flag is ok….

Muslim woman wearing an American flag as a hijab at Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference Fourth of July 2009 in D.C.

H/T creepingsharia

46th Annual ISNA Convention
Theme: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

How dare they. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, one of the most well known phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. What the hell does that have to do with Islam?

Answer: NOTHING  –”Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” does not exist in Islam. Not in it’s true meaning.

And:

From the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) profile on Discover the Networks:

Excerpt

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”; “convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred” (for instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (after Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government’s post-9/11 seizure of Hamas’ and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that “often champions militant Islamist doctrine.”

Adds Emerson: “I think ISNA has been an umbrella, also a promoter of groups that have been involved in terrorism. I am not going to accuse the ISNA of being directly involved in terrorism. I will say ISNA has sponsored extremists, racists, people who call for Jihad against the United States.”

Emphasis mine

An Islamic Trojan horse.  ISNA dear readers is a prime example of what many may claim to be moderate Islam. They are either ignorant or bald face liars. You see to be an Islamic threat one does not have to carry out an act of terrorism. There are many working behind the scenes infiltrating and plotting. As a terror support network. Do not allow yourselves to be fooled. The “threat” is real and it is operating right here on US soil! And worst of all,  ISNA are not the lone dogs from hell in the fight against our “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”  They are coming at US from all directions.

Related:
Poll: Should The Burka Be Banned In The U.S.?
Video: Ban the Burka – Pat Condell
Sarkozy: Burka’s Will Not Be Welcome In France
Unveiling The Burka As A Security Threat
Oslo: Non-Muslim school girls coerced into wearing Hijabs

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »