Wednesday, October 27, 2010

911 Trials

If there was ever an issue that clearly demonstrates the Obama brand of politics and how destructive it is to America (not just traditional America, but all of America) it is the issue of the decision made by Eric Holder concerning the trial of the 911 terrorists.
First, make no mistake, it is clear (as in Supreme Court decision and United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166,) that Eric Holder (thereby President Obama) had the right to hold the trials of the 911 defendants in either military tribunals or civilian courts. He chose to have them in New York in the civilian court system. The terrorists have already admitted their guilt, and have already stated their intent to use the trial to advocate their position. Here is a quick and fair analysis of the pros and cons of the decision.
Military courts would proceed quickly. Possibly as little as 6 months.
Civilian courts would take upwards of 4-6 years.
Military cost has not been stated, however, it should be somewhat minimal, as it is handled by existing military courts. Maybe $500,000 (guess)
Estimate of the cost in the civilian courts is expected to be $75 million to $100 Million. That is just for the first four defendants.
This will provide a stage for the defendants to market their program to the world. Five years of propaganda from these terrorists, all paid for by the US Government (our tax money). It will also drag on this situation for the victims of the 911 disaster (and the rest of us) who would like closure.
Loss of Life to American Civilians
There is clearly a risk to the lives of American citizens during this process. The location of New York City provides an excellent location for further terrorist acts that would threaten the lives of far more people than can be affected by a military tribunal on a military base.
Eric Holder’s only reason to have the trials in civilian courts is to “make sure that the defendants get a fair trial.”
- This assumes that they (people who have already confessed their guilt and have stated that they intend to use the trial for propaganda purposes) can’t get a fair trial in the military system
- This gives the defendants the chance of acquittals (or mistrials) because of technical miscues by the prosecution, thus increasing the chance that they are released.
When President Obama made his campaign statements promising sweeping changes in America, he obviously meant it. The cost of this trial in the middle of a horrendous economic recession that will impact the American taxpayer for decades to come is an indication that he and Holder have no concern for the American taxpayer’s bank accounts, and the other aspects of the trial indicate that they have no concern for the safety of the American people.
All the other political decisions that President Obama has made since taking office may appear to some Americans that he is attempting (appropriately or inappropriately) to change America - for better or worse is a matter of opinion. However, this decision has no defense. We really have to question the motivations behind a decision that has no benefit for the American people whatsoever. The only motivations I can perceive are all negative.
Is anything in this wrong?
So, Mr. Holder, President Obama - I hope no additional lives are lost because of this decision. If there are attacks because of this travesty of justice, I and many other Americans will hold you personally responsible for the deaths. The additional financial, emotional, and political damage is immeasurable.
Mercer Tyson

No comments:

Post a Comment