In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention.
Or is it merely a window into
viewing intent? My premise on asking the last question is this:
Obama wants to destroy this country and, to that end, destroy or weaken the
things which make this country great. Two things which make this country
great-- its philosophy of jurisprudence and its due process --will be weakened
by the venue alone of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends. So
President Obama can be as careless about commenting on the prospective outcome
of the trial as he is about every other item that is part of American Exceptionalism.
He does, however, think everyone
else is stupid, as does Attorney General Eric Holder. That’s why the two
keep assuring the public that these terrorists will be "convicted and get
the death penalty." That’s why the AG says irrelevant things about “not
being scared” when questioned about the venue decision before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The two play on the emotions of the public but never
address what will happen as a result of this trial; they think that all the
public cares about is hanging these terrorists. (Secretary Clinton was dead-on message yesterday.) They think that
the outcome is what matters to us and that we don’t care how the guilty/death
penalty destination is reached, that we don't care about the process. But
in reality this is how they feel—all Leftists believe in outcome-based
decision making. (Need an example? The Community Reinvestment Act.) The
problem with outcome-based decision making is that it almost always produces an
outcome not foreseen and one which is almost always detrimental--usual
inadvertently.
In this case, however, the verdict
of a civilian court trial of KSM et al. will not matter a whit to President
Obama and Attorney General Holder. If the trial remains in civilian court
and it begins, their intended destination will have already been reached.
As a result of such a trial, all the
rules to which courts and, therefore, judges and lawyers previously adhered
will be openly thrown out of the window. Forget about the terrorists for
a second; I’m talking about the rules as they apply to you and to me.
Venues changed at whim; double jeopardy; anonymous accusers--you name it.
Precedent is being set and the name of that precedent is…chaos. Nothing
will kill an organization—or a nation—faster.
Whether the defendants are found
guilty or innocent not guilty, we are in grave danger, both from those
who openly hate what this country stands for and those who secretly do.
The ensuing chaos is the
detrimental outcome intended and it's not such a secret anymore.
UPDATE: Holder admits that there's no real reason to change the KSM trial
venue, no legal one, that is:
I have thought about that possibility [of an acquittal]. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…
It will be a show trial--a stab in the heart of
the legal tradition in this country.
And where would KSM go if he is
acquitted and is unable to settle into a nice loft in Lower Manhattan? Back to
Afghanistan/Pakistan, no doubt, where it all began and where he can train the
next generation of Soldiers of Allah using supplies and facilities bought with Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Army pay.
Lovely.
