NYC Terror Trials: Liberal Fantasyland

KSM, your show trial is ready!

Obama’s terrible decision to try the “mastermind” behind 9-11 and four other terrorists in a civilian court in NYC is being defended in the press (no surprise) with many falsehoods and all the pieces seem to ignore the obvious: how fair will the trials be?

Here is but one example:

The critics can’t really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury — sitting just blocks from Ground Zero — will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality.

We have only to look at the trial of the “20th” 9-11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui to see what will happen this time. Moussaoui may have been mentally deranged, maybe not, but his trial stretched on for nearly four years as he disrupted proceedings, ranted about America, praised Osama bin Laden, and generally tested the patience of Judge Leonie Brinkema.

Or, to hear it from one of the lawyers of the five who are to stand trial the plan is very different from the Liberal ideas we see in the press:

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said.

“Their assessment is negative,” he said.

Eugene Robinson then continues:

Everyone knows that the bloodthirsty blowhard — whom officials often refer to by his initials, KSM — is never going to see the light of day.

Even President Obama had his say about the “innocent until proven guilty” part of American justice:

President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed as Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed: “Failure is not an option.

“Even if a terror trial suspect were acquitted, Holder said, he would not be released in the United States.

NYC: An unattractive terrorist target.

So one of the reasons, Obama claims, that these people are being tried in civilian courts is to show that the rule of law applies in America (but the USS Cole bombers are being tried in military court) however Obama makes it very clear that he presumes KSM to be guilty.  Interesting.  Wouldn’t “no comment” be more appropriate than “he’s guilty” if Obama is so interested in showing how our “rule of law” applies?

Could President Obama really take the heat if KSM is found not guilty?  Could there really be any other outcome but guilty in this trial?

The article continues:

But there’s one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we’re not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven’t changed us or our ideals — and that they never will.

Actually what it will really show “the preachers of hatred” is all of our intelligence as this will have to be surrendered in order to prosecute the five suspected terrorists.  Our enemies will learn what we know, how we know it, and who let us know.  And if the USS Cole bombers are being tried in a military court are we as a country still showing “the preachers of hatred” that we’re not afraid of them?

The Liberal narrative regarding this show trial is absurd.  Only a fool would believe it and yet this is what’s our mainstream press is telling us.

Did you like this article? If so, get new articles every day for free via RSS or Email

Related posts:

1. Guantanamo Bay on the Hudson
2. 5 Signs of Liberal Co-Dependency
3. Letterman's Palin Joke and the Liberal Bubble