I am beginning to lose faith in the truthfulness of Obama Administration representatives whom seem to be emulating their boss's lack of candor, partisan sniping, blame-shifting, and sophistry in discussing things like the convoluted handling of detainees and newly arrested terrorist suspects.
Let's dispatch of one point from the start. First of all, foreign-born terrorists are not American citizens. They are not entitled to Constitutional protections. They have declared war on the United States and its citizens and are not signatories of the Geneva Convention. Certainly KSM thought he was entitled to American legal rights when he refused to cooperate after being arrested, demanding to speak to his American attorney. Given evidence that we got some actionable intelligence, one, in fact, wonders whether that we could have obtained usable information once KSM lawyered up as he intended. To what extent is national security adversely compromised given a defense attorney's potential access to information about intelligence operatives, contacts, procedures, etc.?
Second, for all this pretense about improving due process for terrorists (apparently for the benefit of anti-American Europeans), Attorney General Holder and others on one hand seeming to go back to elementary school to ask conservatives why we are "afraid" of a fair trial (as if military commissions don't have due process...) and then assuring us KSM, the underwear bomber and others will be convicted and/or executed, you have to wonder whether or not they've contradicted their own principles by poisoning the well. Any defense attorney could question whether his client could receive a fair trial if the prosecution is guaranteeing conviction.
Not to mention the extraordinary expenses of trials in high risk areas, like New York City, when, for instance, KSM wanted to plead guilty some time ago. (Since when has Obama cared about deficits? We'll add another trillion to the national debt and trim the budget by less than $20B, proudly showing evidence of our fiscal discipline!) Whether the city or the federal government picks up the high security costs, it's just yet another unnecessary expense based purely on some ideological dogma, not the true interests of justice.
Finally, the defensiveness of Obama Administration personnel is increasingly not credible. For example, we have the clear example of the administration having their cake and wanting to eat it, too: for instance, they want to claim that they have made a qualitative leap forward in justice, banning "torture", etc.; yet at the same time, they want to argue they have been just as effective at getting convictions as the Bush Administration. And then they argue that the Congressional Republicans are being disingenuous in their criticisms of civil trials because the Bush Administration also processed terrorists, like Richard Reid (the shoe bomber). I'm not going to address this matter in depth, but the fact is that the Democrats are well-aware of the long history following Bush's Nov. 2001 executive order creating military tribunals had been created shortly before the Reid incident, and prosecuting US attorney Mike Sullivan suggests that the military tribunal process was still in the process of implementation. Another example that the progressives use is the relatively low number of prosecutions under military tribunals, but once again, this is misleading because there were multiple legal challenges (mounted by progressives, of course) over the next few years against the military tribunal system, including a couple of Supreme Court decisions. In yet another instance, the Obama Administration claimed that some 300 (unlisted) terrorism cases that the Bush Administration prosecuted in civil courts; former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, a Fox News contributor, believes that the Obama Administration is comparing apples and oranges, for example, including prosecutions of eco-terrorism.
Let me conclude with someone whom should have been fired after the underwear bomber incident: Deputy National Security Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, whom, among other things, attempted to intimidate Congressional critics of administration policy: "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Let me make myself clear, Mr. Brennan: to the extent that a terrorist suspect has time-sensitive knowledge of future attacks and he or she is lawyered up during the interim period, the US won't have the necessary intelligence to preempt the attack. This is not fear-mongering--it's stating the obvious.
But Brennan has also recently alleged he briefed four Republican lawmakers/critics (in particular, Rep. Hoekstra (MI-R)) that he told (or implied) the Republicans that the Christmas underwear bomber was going to be charged in civil court with all relevant Constitutional protections (such as Mirandizing--warning the accused he has the right to a lawyer before saying another word to them). Brennan accuses the Republicans for being hypocritical because they didn't raise any objections at the time about the bomber being charged in a civil court versus a military tribunal. There's only one problem with this: Brennan didn't tell the GOP lawmakers that's what was happening. Instead, Brennan seems to believe that it's the Republicans' fault for not going to staff lawyers to read between the lines of what Brennan was saying. Hoekstra claims all that he understand from Brennan's call is that bomber was in custody, which Hoekstra had already assumed was the case from news reports. Brennan KNEW the GOP position on the issue of charging international terrorists in American civil courts. If, in effect, the underwear bomber had already been Mirandized, what could the GOP lawmakers do with a fait accompli?
This is an incompetent administration that systematically and intentionally engages in political spin, misdirection, and legalese. It is an administration unworthy of the American people.
Politically Inconvenient Truth
EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER
UPDATE: The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather [record snowstorms] this week:
- The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States."
Political Cartoon
Lisa Benson makes you wonder about just how much Barack Obama has truly been inspired by the example of John F. Kennedy. Take, for instance, when JFK moved to drop the high marginal tax rate from FDR's hike to over 90% of income (and the rich contributed roughly 11.6% of the tax burden) to 70% (and the rich increased to 15.1% of the burden). In fact, John F. Kennedy said the following (it apparently never made it to Obama's reading list):
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.Obama's response to the lessons of increased tax revenues under the Kennedy/LBJ administrations after cutting tax rates? He's going to raise the marginal tax rates on the upper-income taxpayers (the Democrats are going to say that the tax rates were going to reset anyway). Did he learn anything from the fact when Clinton raises upper-income taxes, the projected income fell short of expectations? What do you think happens when you lower the incentive for upper-income people to earn more, when the government (federal/state/local) takes more (over 50%) than your own share of additional income? In essence, the federal government is giving you an allowance for putting extra time and effort or investing (with some degree of risk) in American businesses (and their jobs) to earn more income...
JFK gave us an inspiring goal--to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade, one of the grandest goals and achievements in world history. Barack Obama, of course, has his own goals--to push heavily subsidized green energy at a time we're running extraordinary deficits to an unrealistic market share, to push for aggressive manufacturing growth while raising taxes on investment and job creator income... These aren't visions: they are delusions. And what's become of JFK's dream of American leadership in space exploration under Barack Obama, whom can recklessly otherwise spend trillions of dollars? Paying Russian taxi fare to outer space?
Musical Interlude: Sun Records Alumni
I'm going to list post-Sun Records favorites by these famous country rock veterans whom started or gained fame at Sun Records:
Elvis Presley, "Suspicious Minds"
Johnny Cash, "Hurt" (2004 Grammy Best Short Form Video)
Roy Orbison, "You Got It"
