Never Forget

Never Forget

Never Forget

A couple of years ago I shared my 9/11 story.  This year, I'm sharing Steve's.  He left this as a comment on my post in 2008, but it merits its own spot:

How can I forget? I remember that day as if it were happening right now. As Pat said, I was the school resource officer where Pat was teaching (a couple of years before Pat and I started dating), and I had the radio on in my office. A report came over the air stating that a plane had struck the World Trade Center. OK, it had to be some idgit who flew his Cessna into the building. I remembered a story I heard about a American bomber crashing into the Empire State Building during WWII. This had be like that incident, Right?
WRONG!

I quickly went the the school library, so I could watch the reports on televsion. What I saw on tv shocked me. One of the towers was belching smoke from a huge gaping hole in its side. Then shortly thereafter they were showing the second plane striking the other tower. Even though I was over 1000 miles away, I was watching the murders of thousands of people.

I was in the Army Reserve then, and because of my job in the reserves, I knew immediately who and what was responsible for this dastardly act. I guess my shock and anger was too much to control. Pat says she remembers me sitting in front of the tv, and I had this shocked and very angry look on my face. I don't remember me saying anything, but Pat says I was sitting there mumbling, "Those damned Ragheads." "That damned Osama Bin Laden." "I know I'm going to get called up."

Eventually my unit was called up, and I ended up spending two years on active duty with the Army. Something I do not regret. Sometimes I feel I wish I could have done more. I was assigned to Ft Polk, Louisiana (that's where Uncle Sam wanted me and that's where I went.) But deep down I feel like I could have done more, there is some regret that I wasn't assigned in Iraq or Afghanistan.

One of my best friends, former roommate, and buddy from my Air Force days, Bob, who is a preacher in the New York area, and a chaplain with the New York Air Guard, called me a couple of days after 9-11. Bob was sent to Ground Zero to console rescue workers and people who lost loved ones.

One of the saddest things Bob told me was people who lost loved ones in the towers were walking around with pictures of their loved one and asking rescue workers if they had seen their loved one.

Pat knows what it's like when Bob and I are together. It's almost non-stop laughter. But one night (about two or three days after the attack) Bob called. The tone was different, and I could tell Bob was in distress. He was aboard a U.S. Navy hospital ship (I beleive he said was docked near Randalls Island) that had been sent to assist in the aftermath. He was almost in tears telling me what he was going through.

Bob said his roommate on the ship was a guy who worked with rescue dogs. He said the handler was telling him that even the dogs were getting depressed, because they couldn't find anyone alive. In order to keep the dogs' spirits up, someone had to lie down in the rubble and allow the dogs to find them. (Being a police officer and watching the K9 units work, I know this is true. Working dogs love to work,because it's play time for them.)

All I could do was listen to Bob and pray with him. It was probably the first time since Bob and I met in September 1977 that there were no jokes, and there was no laughter.

I remember clearly the moment I broke down and finally cried. It was during a news report from London.(God Bless our British brother and sisters. I truly love the British.) It was during the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace (an event I have seen in person, what a sight!), Queen Elizabeth ordered a change in the ceremony's format, which had never been done before. She ordered the playing of the Star Spangled Banner.

The cameras recorded people sticking their arms through the fence and waving American flags. People were wiping away tears.

American and Brits crying for their fellow citizens who were butchered by ruthless animals who don't even qualify to be called pieces of human debris.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

There will be much on television today about 9/11.  Everyone has their own personal memory.  Reaganite Republican has a round-up of bloggers who've posted their own tributes and don't miss this post by Bride of Rove.

Never forget.

Added:  Here's the video Steve referenced.  Brings a tear to my eye every time:



And don't miss Mark Steyn on Bloomberg's daffy decision to exclude firefighters and clergy from the ceremonies:

What’s missing from these commemorations?

Firemen?

Oh, please. There are some pieces of the puzzle we have to leave out. As Mayor Bloomberg’s office has patiently explained, there’s “not enough room” at the official Ground Zero commemoration to accommodate any firemen. “Which is kind of weird,” wrote the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle, “since 343 of them managed to fit into the exact same space ten years ago.” On a day when all the fancypants money-no-object federal acronyms comprehensively failed — CIA, FBI, FAA, INS — the only bit of government that worked was the low-level unglamorous municipal government represented by the Fire Department of New York. When they arrived at the World Trade Center the air was thick with falling bodies — ordinary men and women trapped on high floors above where the planes had hit, who chose to spend their last seconds in one last gulp of open air rather than die in an inferno of jet fuel. Far “too soon” for any of that at New Jersey City University, but perhaps you could reenact the moment by filling out a peace tag for Yoko Ono’s “Wish Tree” and then letting it flutter to the ground.

Read the whole thing.

Also, via Newsbusters, here is George W. Bush's speech in Pennsylvania Saturday  (text at the link):

Full Metal Jacket Reach Around: The Solo Weekend Edition

Mr. SIGIS is in Iowa this week to visit family and attend a wedding.  He sends word that they do in fact sell Sam Adams in Iowa and that the weather is fine.  I wish I could have made the trip with him but work, dogs, a teenager and my mother all beg my presence here.  I've occupied myself today by cleaning out my pantry and throwing away old canned goods that expired in 2007.  I was so inspired by the lovely results that I cleaned out the refrigerator too.  Now I'm sitting here looking at the old Chambers range thinking how nice it would be for it to be scrubbed down.  Maybe tomorrow.

I'm overdue for a linkfest so let's see what everyone is blogging about:

Lots of us are remembering 9/11 this weekend and Donald Douglas has a post on Bloomberg's decision to banish all clergy from the ceremonies.  Paco seconds the sentiment.   Obi's Sister has a wonderful 9/11 post.  Reaganite Republican has a great round-up of bloggers remembering the day.  I don't care what kind of memorial they end up building...to me, those skyward reaching lights will always be it. 

Adrienne has a video but I just couldn't watch it all.  Can't.

Bride of Rove is such a gifted writer and blogger.  Her 9/11 post had me riveted.  When I grow up, I want to write like she does.

Wyblog has the liberal revisionist history lessons for the classroom when teaching about 9/11.

Fishersville Mike is not particularly impressed with Obama's new stimulus plan.  Grandpa John has the perfect response.

On the other hand, Pirate's Cove was impressed with Obama's weekly address.  Hey, credit where credit is due.

The Other McCain touts his spectacular sales report from Amazon Associates.  I'm jealous.  Nobody ever buys big ticket items through my Associates link.  (pout).  See that nice cuckoo clock over there in the sidebar?  You know Octoberfest is coming up, right?  Need a costume?  You know, when I buy something through Amazon, I always go through a blogger's Associate's link.  Spread the love.

There are a couple of charts you should see over at Legal Insurrection before you get too excited about Obama's "Jobs" plan.

Doug Powers reminds us that the smartest man in America isn't so smart.

The Camp of the Saints updates the Uncle Omar saga.  Where in the world....?

My cop buddies my like Milpundit's South Carolina State Trooper Outtakes post, although you've probably heard them all before.  I keep telling Mr. SIGIS he should write a book.

Sarah has a nifty books post for you readers.

Music break:  I'm listening to my iPod and Darius Rucker is on.  LOVE his voice:



Continuing on...

Right on the Left Coast has a great post on "genius kids."  It's a relevant topic to me this semester; I have a student that has really motivated me to find the stretch, the spark and the challenge in the lessons I write.  I don't want to get too much into it here, but it just kills me to let a really bright kid languish in a class while you do crowd control on the others.  It's just not going to happen in my room.

Saberpoint has a post on the Amanda Knox case a good smack on the head for Ann Coulter at the same time.

Doug Ross made me laugh!

Don Surber on Jon Stewart, President Perry and President Romney.

Pundette has two great Mark Steyn clips.

The Old Jarhead remains a great blog for aggregation and commentary.

Nope Mike, my Kindle doesn't do that!  Thank goodness!

Pecan Corner answers the question, what did people do before blogs?

And I'm off now to sit outside in the swing under the magnolia tree and read After America.  Got a roast in the oven and a Sam Adams nearby and will wait to hear from Mr. SIGIS how the Iowa wedding went.

Remember to fly your flag tomorrow.  Old Glory flies every day at Chez SIGIS, but tomorrow, it'll be flying prouder than ever.

Tuesday's Loose Thoughts

Real life has trumped blog life again...well, at least since school started three weeks ago.  My site stats are in the tank, negative numbers, almost, but between school and taking care of my mom, by the time I get to my computer I'm brain dead.  I pretty much quit checking my sitemeter ages ago when I realized that I'm not making any money blogging and that I'll probably die of old age before I join the "million hits" club.  It used to bug me but it doesn't anymore. 

Anyway, there have been some stories that I've been following.  This Gibson guitar thing is just bizarre.  Powerline has a great encapsulation of the whole thing if you're behind the curve like I've been.  And the Michelle Obama twist makes even more crazy.  Gotta love it.  Doesn't the DoJ have anything else to do besides harass one of the few companies that still produces an American product?   Major fail.

Elsewhere, this post by Doug Powers is enough to make one's skin crawl.  "Federal family"?  Really?  Doug:

If my “family” was $14 trillion in debt I’d put myself up for adoption. Oh, and the “federal family” member who would have normally caught the spelling error in “preperations” was out tending to family, so we can forgive that oversight.

This has helped soften the image of the federal government to such a degree that the IRS is now considering referring to themselves as America’s “little audit buddies.”

Seriously.  Skin creepy crawlies.

And then we have Darryl Hannah getting arrested at the White House for a another Hannah-esque liberal unicorns and rainbows sit-in:

"Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your freedom for a greater freedom," Hannah said in Lafayette Park before her arrest.  "And we want to be free from the horrible death and destruction that fossil fuels cause, and have a clean energy future."

The video at the link is just bizarre; Hannah is arrested and frisked to a round of thunderous applause and chants of "Darryl, Darryl, Darryl!" She beams and basks in the moment like a red carpet event.  Irrelevant celebrities I can do without.

All I have to say about this one is that streaks were made to be broken.  

And finally, the tale of Obama's Uncle Omar gets weirder and weirder.  The Boston Herald reports today that Uncle Omar had a valid Social Security number even though he's an illegal alien ordered to be deported.  How'd that happen?    Mark Krikorian explains how it could have happened.

Oh and one last thing:  I watched the George Bush interview about 9/11 on Nat Geo last night.  Powerful stuff.  Powerful.  Catch it if you get a chance; it was well done. 

The Liberal Left Misses Dubya, Too

Oh this is just too gleefully rich for me:

There's a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama's waffling on the issue, they're calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America's relationship with Islam. It's an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America's image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States.

Oh you are just kidding me!  Seriously?  We've got the likes of Maureen Dowd pining for Dubya?

The war against the terrorists is not a war against Islam. In fact, you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam. George W. Bush understood this. And it is odd to see Barack Obama less clear about this matter than his predecessor. It’s time for W. to weigh in. 

Incredible.

Ed Morrissey has the rest:

That, of course, is one of the delicious ironies of this situation.  Obama has done nothing but attack and demonize Bush for the last nineteen months, mainly to distract attention from Obama’s own failures on the economy.  In fact, while Dowd et al demand a response from Bush, Obama is busy on the campaign trail (an activity that Obama chided the GOP for doing while Obama attended big fundraisers) attempting to continue blaming Bush for the economic slide Obama promised to prevent with his massive spending.

Heh!  And Doug Powers has a wonderful line here:

Are they asking the same George W. Bush who started an illegal and immoral war, lied about WMDs so his buddies could profit from the invasion and tortured exclusively Muslim detainees to come to the rescue of a president who was supposed to save America from all the horror Bush hath wrought? That’s fine, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Yes, I appears most of us are on the same page.

And let me reiterate what most poeple already recognize; this isn't about building a mosque.  It's about building a mosque right there.  That point is even more evident when you know that Gov. David Paterson offered to meet with developers in order to help them find a new site and they refused.  In fact, developer Sharif El-Gamal said the planned mosque is "nowhere near the World Trade Center site."  Yeah, well, we know that's not true.  We know, too, that wreckage from the attack crashed through the Burlington Coat Factory building which is to be the site of this mosque.  Pretty near, if you ask me.

And now the liberal left who support the building of this mosque on the ashes of the World Trade Center want George W. Bush to weigh in.  They assume he will support the plan; he might and he might not.

Be careful what you wish for.

Shocker: Obama Backtracks on Mosque Statement

Obama's position on the Ground Zero mosque has been the dominant topic on Memeorandum for days; and of course, now he's pulling back on his statement.  I think Byron York handled this one best when he pointed out that Obama is very well aware of the fact that he says one thing and means another:

Now, there is simply no doubt that Obama's Friday evening speech, in the context in which it was delivered, was an endorsement of the Ground Zero project. It was certainly widely understood as such...But on Saturday, Obama said all those listeners were wrong, that they misunderstood him.

That's the whole thing...context.  Of course he wanted his iftar guests to conclude he supported the mosque.  Why else issue such a statement at such a time and place? 

But now, he has the luxury of saying, "Wait!  Wait!  You misunderstood me," to everyone else. 

Bullshit.

Of course the Imam has a legal right to build there.  Once again, that's not the issue.  The issue is the sensitivity of it.  I forget who said it but someone on television made a comparison to Pearl Harbor; nobody would consider building a monument to kamikaze pilots at Pearl Harbor.  It's not so very different.

Drudge isn't shy about heading into this one:

And, now, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Obama's buddy, Charlie Crist, has come out in support of Obama's statement.  You've got to just love this one.  Crist, who was just nearly tanked by the photograph of him and Obama as he supported the stimulus, now comes out in support of the mosque:

"I think he's right - yeah," Crist, who was elected governor as a Republican but is now running for Senate as an independent candidate, told CNN. "We are a country in my view that stands for freedom of religion. You know, respect for others. I know there are sensitivities and I understand that, but I think Mayor Bloomberg is right and I think the President is right."

What a buffoon.

And on the same day we learn that Rubio has passed Crist in the polls.  This one is still very tight, but Crist is doing himself no favors here.  Keep on talkin', Charlie.  Keep on talking. Maybe you'd like to go take a dip in the Atlantic with the Obamas while they're on yet another vacation, this time in your state. 

It'll be good times watching Gibbs spin all this tomorrow.  Can't wait.

Following the Imam to the Middle East

This is a story that bears watching over the next few weeks:  our State Department (read:  tax dollars) plans to send Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam planning the Ground Zero Mosque, on an outreach trip to the Middle East. 

The Weekly Standard's John McCormack has the money quote:

If the purpose of the junket is to "help people overseas understand our society"--and not to help Rauf raise the $100 million for his mosque--wouldn't it make sense to send someone representative of the vast majority of Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque? Perhaps the State Department could send someone--maybe Juan Williams or Rich Lowry or Abe Foxman or Bill McGurn or David Harsanyi or Neda Bolourchi or Sarah Palin or Rod Dreher or Christopher Caldwell or Bill Kristol--to explain to the people of the world that Americans aren't bigots but simply find it offensive and insensitive to build a mosque two blocks from the site of a horrific Islamist terrorist attack? 

And then McCormack suggests that Greg Gutfeld might be the perfect guy to do this.  Gutfeld, as you know, has suggested building a gay bar next to the mosque since we're all concerned about sensibilities and such.

And in a related story, Andy McCarthy reports that human remains are still being found at Ground Zero:

In late June, CBS — in a barely noticed story that is no longer available on its website — reported that 72 sets of human remains had just been recovered and identified as a result of new construction work at the Ground Zero site.

And we're ready to build a mosque there?  Seriously?

I'm not sure what kind of "outreach" this Imam is really headed to the Middle East to do, but I hope it's to point out that sensibilities run both ways and NOT to raise money for a mosque at Ground Zero that runs against the wishes of most Americans who will NEVER FORGET.

On Bloomberg's Defense Ground Zero Mosque

Michael Bloomberg's defense of the mosque to be built near Ground Zero is simply disgraceful as well as weak.  I haven't weighed in on this issue much on this blog, partly because so many others are doing a fantastic job on the coverage (Pamela Gellar...) and partly because I just couldn't believe it would actually happen.  That's a problem I often have - "That's so ridiculously inconceivable it just CAN'T happen!  People can't be that crazy!"  I said that before the 2008 election.  See where that got me.

Yesterday New York's Landmark Commission voted unanimously not to give landmark status to a building where the new mosque is to be built just 600 feet from Ground Zero.  This means, of course, that the building can be demolished and the construction on the mosque can proceed.

Bloomberg gave a speech following the vote in which he drew some, well, odd comparisons:

"Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

Okay, so I agree with the fact that our founders intended us to have "freedom to worship as we wish" but he loses me on the comparison to the Jewish community.  I see where he's going with this - that we should exercise tolerance - but the analogy doesn't work.  The Jews never bombed American buildings and they didn't kill 3000 innocents on 9/11.   He then goes on to the Quakers:

"In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

Same argument here.  The analogy is flat.  He doesn't ignore the Catholics either:

"In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's – St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

The point he's making is that we should exercise tolerance and let other religions have the freedom to practice, to worship.  Nobody is denying that to the Muslims.  There are plenty of mosques in New York City.  There are lots of places that a new mosque could be built should it be necessary to do so.  The fact that THIS mosque is to be built on hallowed ground, at the site where extremist Muslims attacked and killed Americans, is such a gross display of insensitivity it completely trumps any insensitive issues that might lie in one's refusal to let Muslim's practice there. 

For Bloomberg to ignore that is beyond the pale.

This is the thesis of his argument:

The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right [to use that site for worship] – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion?

First of all, nobody is denying anyone the right to worship.  Nobody is trying to "deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship," but don't build it there.  If the leaders behind the mosque project had any intention of bridging community good will and bring people together, they wouldn't build it there.  They don't.  Their point is otherwise intended.

Quite simply, the intent of this particular mosque is to serve as a sign of victory over Americans.  "We beat you.  You can't stop us." 

Bloomberg is a fool to ignore this.

Dorothy Rabinowitz at the Wall Street Journal asks:

Namely, how is it that the planners, who have presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted, despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence in this place of haunted memory?

And do you just love Robert Gibbs yesterday and his goofy response when asked about this issue?  He declared that the administration was not going to weigh in on "local decision-making."  Since when have they adopted that policy?

In the end, it doesn't matter what they call the mosque, how they frame it, what kind of outreach they do, it's still a victory marker for radical Islam.  If the New York Landmark Commission won't do it, then some other legal way must be found.  It's a slap in the face to the memory of those who died there.

This Oil Spill, It's Kind of Like 9/11, Ya Know?

Add this to the list of "Oh no, he didn't!" as it pertains to the twaddle that comes out of Obama's mouth:

Sounding reflective as he heads into a bruising electoral season, President Barack Obama told POLITICO columnist Roger Simon that the Gulf disaster “echoes 9/11” because it will change the nation’s psyche for years to come.

Yeah, as Jim Hoft said,

Except without the leadership, the terror, the Islamists and the 3,000 dead Americans.

And, ya know, that anti-incumbent mood out there, it's Bush's fault:

“So I’m going to be fighting on their behalf and doing everything I can and using my bully pulpit to communicate that fact to the American people,” he said. “I know there’s an anti-incumbent mood out there right now because … people are frustrated about the hit that the economy has taken. … But what I’m going to remind people of is we didn't create this mess. And this Congress responded forcefully at a time when this economy really could have fallen off a cliff.” 

Our anger apparently has nothing to do with the ramming of Obamacare down our throats, the effort to pass cap and trade, the unfathomable debt, and rising taxes, energy costs and unemployment.   "They've done a great job," he said, and "deserve re-election."

Bull-hockey.

And now, all of a sudden, he's worried about what our children and grandchildren will have to bear in the future:

What we can predict is that the availability of fossil fuel is going to be diminishing; that it’s going to get more expensive to recover; that there are going to be environmental costs that our children, … our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren are going to have to bear.”

Oh, you didn't think he was talking about that debt, did you?  Har!  No, no, no, silly fool.  He wants to use this crisis to further his political agenda and his energy policy.  Windmills and all that.  

How about opening up ANWR, buddy?  Or are you too worried about the caribou?

 

Oh seriously, I'm with Malia - plug the damn hole.  And I don't mean the one in the ocean.

Biden Says No More Major Attacks Are Coming

Here is "Don't Mess With Joe" Biden talking to Larry King about the potential for another massive 9/11 type attack, which he declares "unlikely."

In fact, he explains that the terrorists seem to be going to "smaller" but more "devastatingly frightening" attacks, like the Christmas Day bomber. It's hard to imagine how anything could be "more devastating frightening" than 9/11, but Joe says it's so.

All is well, though. Biden says he's "been impressed" with the efforts this administration has made in building on the last administration in the fight against terror.

That's a relief.

Never Forget

ABC News has released never before seen aerial images of 9/11. They're incredible. This image is just one of them. Go here to see the rest.

ABC News obtained these images after filing a Freedom of Information Act request in 2009 with the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

No Support For 9/11 Health Bill from The House of Obama

Thanks to Hot Air, I'm speechless.

Who thought THIS dog would hunt?

The Obama administration stunned New York's delegation Thursday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill.

The state's two senators and 14 House members met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just hours before President Obama implored in his speech to the nation for Congress to come together and deliver a government that delivers on its promises to the American people.

So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.

Allahpundit is also speechless:

Total cost: $11 billion … over 30 years. The optics of this are so appallingly bad, especially in light of the rumors circulating about the U.S. and UK offering the Taliban $1 billion to play ball in Afghanistan (which may be paying off), that I can’t believe there’s no ulterior motive. Is this actually some sort of kabuki aimed at giving Obama an excuse to reverse himself about the spending freeze?

Wow. That's all. For now. Just wow. Un-freakin' believable.

I wish some liberal would stop by about now and tell me why this is a good idea? Why they still support this clown? Anybody?

Eric Holder Attends Security Summit for 9/11 Terror Trials

ABC News reports tonight that Attorney General Eric Holder is in New York for a sort of security summit "with federal prosecutors, the New York City police commissioner and other key officials" in anticipation of the upcoming 9/11 terrorist trials. A federal grand jury is already supposedly hearing evidence and presumably will come back with an indictment. One would hope.

Elements of trial prep underway are reportedly:

* Beefed up counter terrorism and intelligence operations

* Deployment of sniper teams

* Heavy weapons deployment

* Barricades

* Traffic diversions

* Use of undercover officers and surveillance measures

* Coordination with FBI, U.S. Marshalls, and intelligence divisions

All at a price tag of well over the initial $75 million estimate. The cost be damned! Chuck Schumer issued the following statement:

"The bottom line is these are federal terror cases that will bring to justice, in federal court, the evil men behind the attack on our nation on 9-11," Schumer said today. " It's common sense that the federal government pay for security costs because these trials will place a significant burden on the NYPD and the city to keep lower Manhattan safe and secure. Additionally, the tools and resources needed for a trial of this scale are enormous. Attorney General Holder told me he will press to fully reimburse the city's security expenses and I will hold the Administration's feet to the fire to do just that – no matter what the cost."

And all this is for what? For a grandstand for terrorists who hate us, who engaged in activities to kill nearly 3,000 Americans, who can't wait to spew anti-American venom in their now public forum. They will claim that they've been tortured and abused. Poor things. Evil Americans.

Dick Cheney rightly points out that "holding the trial in a lower Manhattan courtroom near ground zero will make Mohammed 'a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world.'"

It's all even more absurd when you recall that KSM had already tried to plead guilty and asked for execution. End of story.

But, no. The man-child Obama and the left-of-liberal Eric Holder want to hold this circus in New York City.

Amateurs. Incompetence. Disgrace.

Update: Donald Douglas has more at American Power.

Thomas Wilner's Weak Argument for Civilian Trials

With regard to the upcoming KSM trial in New York, Thomas Wilner has an Op-Ed in today's Wall Street Journal in which he attempts to make the case that Eric Holder's decision to hold criminal trials for these five terrorists is a good idea. Better, even, than a military tribunal. There are some problems with Mr. Wilner's argument, however, at least as I see it.

He begins his argument by attempting to make the case that these guys were captured "far from any battlefield":

The premeditated murder of innocent civilians far from any battlefield is not the act of a warrior, but of a criminal. The prior administration detained these men indefinitely as "enemy combatants." But the laws of war allow only temporary detention of combatants until the end of the armed conflict in which they were captured. They were never intended to authorize the detention of people for terrorist activities far from the battlefield.

I have to differ with him on that. In the first place, the war on terrorism is a world stage; the entire would could be seen as a battlefield in such a war. Secondly, the terrorists brought the battlefield to the United States when they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and when they flew into that field in Shanksville. And thirdly, KSM was captured in Pakistan, which is definitely part of the "battlefield" as a neighbor to Afghanistan and a harbor to al Qaeda; it's been believed that bin Laden escaped the hills of Tora Bora to Pakistan when he was nearly captured by our military.

Wilner then attempts to make the case that there is some difference between a "terrorist" and an "enemy combatant" to the degree that a terrorist shouldn't be taken as seriously as an enemy combatant. His reasoning seems to be that the terrorist does not wear the uniform of his country and the enemy combatant does. Again, this is a different kind of war; in a sense, KSM and friends ARE wearing the uniform of their cause because they are fighting for radical Islam and their uniform is their hatred for Americans. Just because this is a different kind of war does not make it any less of a war.

Wilner cites the high conviction rate of terrorists in civilian courts:

In a detailed study prepared in 2006 under the Bush administration, the Justice Department reported "impressive success" in convicting terrorists. Between September 2001 and June 2006, it obtained convictions against more than 250 people for terrorism-related offenses, covering a range of activities, from completed acts of terrorism to the "early stages of terrorist planning."

Nobody really doubts that a conviction could be obtained, but as Andrew McCarthy said last week, "The problem on this ride is not the destination, but the journey." KSM and his attorneys will have access to a plethora of sensitive information.

Wilner tries to make the case that sensitive information will be protected, but there are no guarantees of that. In fact, as Wilner himself says, KSM and friends will have access to that information because "as the Supreme Court emphasized in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008), detainees must be given the opportunity to confront the evidence against them." Wilner says that the Classified Information Procedures Act will protect that information, but it didn't in the case of the Blind Sheikh trial.

Again, I cite Andrew McCarthy, who has some experience in trying enemy combatants in civilian courts, who says, "Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets."

And there are real problems with Wilner's argument in his next paragraph:

Military tribunals may be appropriate when the perpetrators are combatants or the targets are military, as with the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. But they have a lower conviction rate and do not have the same international credibility as trials in the federal courts. Moreover, federal judges have extensive experience dealing with these cases, with attempts to disrupt the process, and with keeping the focus on the key issue of guilt or innocence, rather than on the legitimacy of the forum being used.

One of the targets on 9/11 was the Pentagon which is most assuredly a military target, so Wilner's first sentence is discounted. A military tribunal is absolutely in order for KSM on those grounds. As far as a lower conviction rate for military tribunals, that's not relevant in the case of KSM either as he had already plead guilty in his military commission. Military commissions are absolutely legitimate forums as Eric Holder even agrees by moving the trial of the USS Cole bombers there. So, I don't see the sense of Wilner's argument here.

Wilner seems to be saying that KSM ought be tried in a civilian court because he wasn't captured on any battlefield and he didn't attack a military target - and both premises are incorrect. Wilner's attempts to support his argument by claiming that we're more likely to get a conviction for KSM in a civilian court is also a non sequitur as KSM had already pled guilty. And at least if KSM and friends attempt to use the courtroom as a forum for their hatred of America then a military commission would be the most appropriate place for that as the American people wouldn't have to listen to it. It removes the forum.

The way I see it, if there IS a case to be made for KSM to be tried in New York, Mr. Wilner didn't make it.

“You are going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.”

If you can get all the way through this video without spewing your coffee, let me know:



I'm speechless right now, but I'll have more later.

Eric Holder Defends His Decision to Bring KSM to New York City

According to the AP, Eric Holder is defending his decision to hold KSM's trial in New York City, saying "I'm not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial — and no one else needs to be either."

I've already done the rant, so I won't go into that again, but I will suggest that this comment by Holder is just dumb. He misses the point entirely. Or at least, he pretends to.

First of all, nobody actually believes that this was his decision and that he made it without first getting approval from his boss. We're not that naive.

Second, it's not that we're "afraid" of what KSM will say, although nobody is looking forward to his bile and vitriol, but that we're concerned about KSM and his lawyers having unfettered access to hundreds of classified documents regarding intelligence gathering, methods, and evidence. Much of our intelligence operations will now be compromised. Certainly Holder hasn't missed that point.

Third, with regard to this administration's adopting a pre-9/11 approach to terrorism, Holder says "We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power — civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others — to win." Blather. You've now nullified the intelligence option, Mr. Holder. What you really want to do here is to put the Bush administration on trial. Period.

KSM and all the others should be tried in a military commission; Holder's excuse that the Twin Towers was a "civilian target" is worse than lame; he insultingly omits the Pentagon attack. Definitely NOT a civilian target.

To politicize the terror, fears, trauma, and loss of the loved ones in those attacks on 9/11 is simply despicable.

Meanwhile, Holder's boss seems to have the inside dope on the outcome of the trial. He told NBC's Chuck Todd, “I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” Are you offering guarantees on that, Mr. Obama? No? I didn't think so. Good thing you weren't handicapping the Moussaoui trial.

(H/T: Memeorandum)

"It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security."

Update: Memeorandum has a great thread going on this topic.

In the trade-off between civil liberties and national security, Obama chooses civil liberties - for terrorists. National security be damned.

I wrote yesterday on the debacle that having the KSM trial in New York would be. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, former Justice Department official John Yoo has an excellent piece on the intelligence bonanza the trial will be for al Qaeda. His main point: "The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism."

This decision takes us back to a pre-9/11 mindset; you'll hear that phrase over and over, and it will probably lose its meaning as things do when you hear them too often. But stop and think about this one. We're treating an act of war as a criminal matter now.

As I said yesterday, KSM and his attorneys will be entitled to know what information the government has on him and how we got it. Yoo points out that "During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators. In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit."

There will be no way around this. It will happen again. This will compromise all of our intelligence efforts to date on al Qaeda.

Yoo also adds: "For a preview of the KSM trial, look at what happened in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested in the U.S. just before 9/11. His trial never made it to a jury. Moussaoui's lawyers tied the court up in knots."

To those that say that the American justice system can handle such a trial and that we've done it before, I say you're missing the point. The point is that you simply cannot treat an act of terrorism on Americans as a criminal matter. It was an act of war and must be treated as such. To drag KSM and all of the evidence into a courtroom is the most an incredibly dangerous thing to Americans that Obama could do.

This decision has simply got to be political suicide for Obama. I can not figure out why he would make such a hugely unpopular choice and one that he knows full well puts America right back in al Qaeda's crosshairs.

Many of us have been questioning his love for America from day one; this just reinforces that opinion in my mind. He should take every effort possible to keep America safe from another terrorist attack. He has not done so in this case.

"A Mind-Numbingly Misguided Decision"

Jennifer Rubin calls the Obama move to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for trial a "mind-numbingly misguided decision."

Listening to the chatter about this decision on the Sunday talk shows, it's clear that discussion on this decision revolves around several fronts: the circus-like atmosphere it will create, the increased potential for a terrorist attack to New York, and the bounty of classified information that such a trial will afford the terrorist community.

First consider the circus that the KSM trial will be. It will make the O. J. Simpson trial of fourteen years ago look mild by comparison. If you just consider the O.J. trial as an example, you can assume that with KSM, the drama will begin from the moment he is moved from Guantanamo. In an equivalent showing to the O.J. slow-speed car chase, will we have to watch the transport of KSM as they drive him through the streets of New York to his new federal cell? When Bernie Madoff was driven to the courtroom, the television cameras were right there for every stoplight and every left turn.

It will only get worse from there. The O.J. trial dominated television for eight months. the KSM trial will certainly do the same. Will the there be television cameras in the courtroom? The prosecutors and defense attorneys will all become celebrities, books will follow. The judge will become a household name. And what of the risks to all of their families? Any attempt to keep identities secret would be short lived.

Remember the O.J. t-shirt vendors? The people holding posters and signs? The satellite trucks and media talking heads at every turn?

Multiply that by 2,819 and you'll get an idea what the KSM circus will be.

By my estimation, this will all begin to unfurl as the 2010 elections heat up; what a bounty for Republican candidates to use in their campaigns.

Mayor Bloomberg says that New York can handle such a trial. Via Politico:

“I support the Obama Administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here,” Bloomberg said. “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered. We have hosted terrorism trials before, including the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

Bloomberg expressed no concerned that the trial will make the city a bigger target for terrorists.

“I have great confidence that the NYPD, with federal authorities, will handle security expertly. The NYPD is the best police department in the world and it has experience dealing with high-profile terrorism suspects and any logistical issues that may come up during the trials,” Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg is concerned, and rightly so, with the security issue. While it's true that New York has been increasing their terrorist detection threats over the past eight years, why on earth should the citizens of New York have to deal with such a threat at all? Haven't they been through enough? The city was outraged at the insensitivity of the Air Force One flyover for a photo op in April of this year. What in the world will come out of Pandora's box with KSM in town?

With regard to the issue of classified information, KSM will certainly request and be entitled to receive documents and information about the government's case against him. He and his attorneys will have access to hundreds of classified documents which will be a bonanza to the jihadists waiting in the wings. To assume that the information won't get leaked or transmitted is naive.

Jennifer Rubin is correct. This is an incredibly mind-numbing decision. Poor taste, poor leadership, and poor management. KSM should be left to the military commissions and there is no good reason why he shouldn't be. This decision seems to indicate that military commissions are incapable, which in itself is an insult.

The final insult that Attorney General heaps upon us with this news is that he made this decision on his own. Are we to believe for one millisecond that Obama wasn't involved in this? That Holder unilaterally made a decision that means political suicide for his boss? If so, expect Holder to go under the bus soon.

I'm betting you won't see that.

Coming to America

Are you kidding me?! Who in the hell is running this country?

Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and four co-defendants will be tried in federal court in New York instead of a military commission, a federal official said Friday morning.

This is a very bad, very dangerous decision. Stop for a moment and imagine the circus that this will be. How long before KSM lawyers up, with some of the best New York lawyers no doubt, and half the evidence is tossed out. As soon as he gets here he'll be the grateful recipient of a host of Constitutional rights.

For the record, the 9/11 families are against this and believe that these guys should be tried in military courts. They have appealed, fruitlessly it would seem, to Obama not to bring them to the United States or provide them United States Constitutional rights, "a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy."

Like I said last night, every day it's a new ambush by this administration. Your world just became a whole lot less safe today.