OBAMA DICTATES KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED TO BE TRIED IN NYC!

Barack Hussein Obama, as part of the "change" he promised, chose to ignore 2000 years of history and determined that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed must be tried in a civilian court for acts of war against the United States. This self-professed, mass-murdering, terrorist scumbag is in New York City awaiting trial, rather than facing a military tribunal - as those who commit acts of war against a sovereign have for millennia. Never before in the course of history has there been an instance recorded where a known enemy combatant was given a civilian trial! Acts of a military nature are - and always have been - subject to military law and military justice.

First of all, why is Obama even involved in the process of determining where and how this coward will be tried? Because he chose to insinuate himself into it. Only Obama understands the warped reasoning behind that choice. This is the one instance where he really should have just voted "present". His role as "Commander in Chief" is laughable inasmuch as he has never had any military training, much less worn a uniform. How does one "command" that which he has never experienced himself? Obama isn't qualified to lead an orchestra! Why did all you left-wing, bleeding-heart, pinko liberal-"progressives" put him in charge of our nation's security?

Perhaps Obama involved himself in this military issue to placate his Muslim pals, and maybe he has assured them that all will be forgiven, and that their terrorist minions will all be returned home (at U.S. taxpayer expense, of course) alive and well... and a few pounds heavier than when they left. The only thing he's accomplished since elected is to vacation around the world while apologizing for the USA at every stop!

Obama Blows It Again! Or, Maybe, "It Again" Is Unnecessary

President Obama and his administration have ordered FBI agents to read terror suspects their Miranda Rights; even though they have been captured on foreign soil and are not U.S. citizens officially protected by the Miranda vs. Arizona decision over 40 years ago. The Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered the FBI to issue Miranda rights to foreign fighters captured on the field of battle.

The problems I have with that include (but are not limited to):
1. The terror suspects are not American citizens, nor have they been "arrested" for committing a crime on American soil.
2. The FBI's "charter" is within the confines of the 50 United States.
3. The vast majority of terrorists (99.9%) were not captured upon U.S. soil. They have not been "arrested" per se.
4. Accordingly, suspects arrested in the US are to be Mirandized before Questioning - which, in the case of foreign enemy combatants, will mean that crucial intelligence opportunities must be postponed until the FBI arrives. In the interim, the lives of American soldiers are placed in additional and unnecessary jeopardy, due to their inability to harvest
immediate and timely humint.
5. Under whose laws will they be charged, and what will those charges be? We cannot charge them under the laws of the country in which they were captured, simply because we do not administer those laws. We can't charge them under the United States Code, because they commited no crime upon U.S soil.
6. Besides which, is there anything in our laws which makes it illegal to fire upon U.S. military forces on foreign soil?
7. Where the hell is the money going to come from to try these 200+ prisoners in US civilian courts?

The trial of an enemy combatant has, throughout recorded history, fallen upon the commander of the opposing forces and whatever military tribunal was appointed by him. Prior to the 20th century, trials of enemy combatants were considerably simpler. The prisoner was brought before the tribunal, found guilty, and executed - all within the space of about 10 minutes... and at virtually NO expense! Beheadings by the sword were free... and an 18th century 7-man firing squad invoked a total cost about 21¢ for the cost of 7 bullets and gunpowder. Those were the good ol' days!

The legal complexities and logistics of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts under US laws are mind boggling. This is obviously something that should remain under the auspices of a military tribunal, for any number of practical reasons (see items 1-7 above). In an imploding economy cost alone should tell Obama that he has chosen the wrong path. On the other hand, it's not like it's Obama's money being spent on this fiasco... it's OURS! And, if he needs more, he'll just raise taxes!

I could be wrong about this whole thing... what do you think?

Obama Orders Closure of Guantanamo

There's no surprise in that, as any good left-wing, bleeding-heart, socialist liberal will tell you. But, that's not the end of it, OH NO! He also wants to bring those that are not released into the United States, give them all the benefits of our constitution, try them in civilian courts, and provide them with civilian attorneys!

Here's what's wrong with those ideas:

1. Personally (and I know all the Constitutional Law scholars would disagree with me), I don't believe that anybody who is not a citizen of this country should be entitled to the protections guaranteed by our constitution. I'm a bit flexible on that belief if somebody can show me a rational argument indicating that I'm wrong. So far though, nobody has.

2. Bringing them into this country gets them closer to their desired targets - Americans!
3. Trying them in civilian courts is absolutely ridiculous. These people are not peaceful demonstrators, they are enemy combatants detained by the US military as a result of, in many cases, armed, confrontations with US military forces. These cowards are not civilians, nor are they uniformed military, nor do they represent the publicly stated policies of any sovereign nation's government. What they are is organized armed thugs wishing to do physical harm of a terminal nature to all Westerners, and anybody else that does not believe exactly as they do! They hide among the civilian populations of the Middle East, attack from within those populations, and then when we respond to those attacks, they whine to the global left-wing media about Western forces injuring civilians. They are prisoners of war and, as such, they should be outside the purview of civilian courts, and subject to trial only by military tribunal. Never in the history of the world have run-of-the-mill prisoners of war been tried in civilian courts, why should we begin now?
4. Providing them with civilian attorneys is equally ridiculous, for the above reasons, PLUS the expense of their defense would be paid for by our tax dollars! On the other hand, perhaps all those good, left-wing, ACLU attorneys will provide their services pro bono ... but don't hold your breath while waiting for that to happen! Obama has already told us that he wants a national budget in the TRILLIONS of dollars, to bring his socialist give-away agenda to fruition. I sense that smug feeling of victory will soon disappear from those Americans who were so emotionally overwhelmed at Obama's election to the highest office in the land. It's called the Peter Principle ...

I could be wrong ... but, I'm NOT!

Terror Suspects Can Challenge U.S. Detention: Court

The 4th U.S. Court o f Appeals , in Richmond, VA, today ruled that the President can order the imprisonment of an al Queda suspect in the United States, but the detainee must be able to challenge his status as an "enemy combatant." This has some interesting implications:

1. Are people engaged in combat against U.S. Military forces not de facto enemy combatants?

2. If not, then why were they carrying AK-47 assault rifles, and shooting at our soldiers? Did they confuse the 1st Infantry Division with a very large, noisy mob of rabbits?

3. If their capture was not the product of direct combat (i.e. not shooting or involved in obvious guerrilla activities, such as storing weapons, making/planting IEDs, etc.), but rather captured on reliable intelligence information indicating that they were enemy agents, should they be tried by a military tribunal, or in the civilian court system?

Let's assume that conditions 1 & 2 are both met, and the people we're talking about are genuine 'enemy combatants.' Historically, and in keeping with established U.S. military tradition and regulations, Prisoners of War (POW's) have been incarcerated without further legal proceedings for the duration of the conflict, whether it was 6 days or 10 years.

Suddenly somebody wants to change 200+ years of legal precedent to accommodate the uniqueness of the ongoing Iraq War. They want these terrorist hairballs to be tried in civilian U.S. courts! Could it be that shyster attorneys see an opportunity to make a lot of taxpayer money by defending these POS? Oh - my error - POWs! Another historical precedent is that anybody engaging in actions against the military, who was not wearing the uniform of the opposing military, was considered a spy and summarily executed - post haste! None of these cowardly, bottom-feeding scumbags wears a uniform of any kind (but if you're a left-wing, bleeding-heart, commie pinko, 'blame America first', Jane Fonda liberal, you've probably convinced yourself that the consistent lack of a uniform is their uniform, and should therefore be accepted as such).

Absurd actions, such as trying these bozos in civilian courts, will not only clog our Federal Court System, but will burn up tens of millions of our tax dollars that could otherwise be put to much better use. If they were involved in any manner working against our forces, then they are not 'civilians', but enemy combatants, and should be dealt with as such according to military law! But that's just my thoughts on the matter ... KILL 'EM ALL, and let their mythical Allah sort 'em out!