The Real Objectives of Obama’s NYC Show Trial
NEW YORK: The NIP’s mission statement points out that prevaricators all have one thing in common, “they attempt to influence others to the benefit of the prevaricator.” If you keep that in mind when you examine Eric Holder’s announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his accomplices will be tried in New York City you can learn much about the objectives of this prevaricating administration. Let’s look at it.
First we need to realize that this is Obama’s decision, not Eric Holder’s. If Holder didn’t have Obama’s support he would be gone in an instant. Too much time and energy has been wasted speculating how the President could allow such decisions, allowing people like Van Jones, Anita Dunn, in the White House, etc. The decisions are made, and the positions are filled because the decisions and people involved represent how Obama looks at life.
Public reaction to Obama’s decision has been vitriolic. Many would agree with Bret Stephens who wrote in today’s Wall Street Journal:
I have long thought it would be a good idea to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his accomplices to lower Manhattan. In my concept, the men would be taken by helicopter to a height of about 1,000 feet over Ground Zero and pushed out the door, so that they, too, could experience what so many of their victims did in the awful final flickering seconds of their lives.
And since al Qaeda intended the attacks as a spectacle for the benefit of its would-be recruits, I’d give al Jazeera the exclusive TV rights. Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
Secondly let’s examine their so-called reasoning for allowing this show trial to take place in NYC. The reasons for doing so were outlined by Sen. Jack Reed D-RI, of the Armed Services Committee yesterday during his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday (view below.) The Attorney General was motivated according to the party-line view to provide the “best forum to guarantee the success of the prosecution.” Trying KSM in a civilian court supposedly takes away his status as a jihadist and relegates it to that of a common criminal. The last major reason for trying KSM in NYC is to show the world that the US is above petty politics and lives by the rule of law.
Guarantee justice? KSM pleaded guilty in a military tribunal, a proceeding valid under international law according to the Geneva Convention. All he needs is sentencing. Criminal, not jihadist? Trouble with that is that KSM and radical Islam are at war with “the Great Satan.” Rule of law? The assertion that this trial will prove by example that we follow the rule of law and will somehow impress the Muslim world was deftly refuted by Chris Wallace during Reed’s interview.
When asked about the possible outcome of acquittal Reed asserts that KSM would be retained in custody (minute 6:05 in clip below). When Wallace asks about the repercussions of such an action Reed could only answer with a smile. So it really isn’t about justice then. Reed knows it, and this administration knows it.
So what is this show trial really about? That is the real question. These are smart people. They are cognizant of their specious reasoning. Once you have discarded their smokescreen statements, whatever is left, no matter how unpleasant, must be the truth.
This administration intends to weaken our national defense by exposing intelligence practices to the world, to fan the flames of Islamic fanaticism, and to discredit the Bush administration, all the while gaining further support from their radical left political base. Any resulting destabilization will provide further opportunities to extend the left’s power over the American people and bring about radical change. It’s all about politics, plain and simple.
… Maybe not plain. Certainly not simple.