June 2008



Obama, in his infinite wisdom, said:

the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them in trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated.

Andrew McCarthy pointed our how wrong the wise one was, in this NRO rebuttal.

But there is another huge problem with the Supreme Court’s decision, as I pointed out in a previous post. From that post:

Bradford Berenson, former Associate White House Counsel, was on C-Span (Friday evening 3/23/06), explaining why military tribunals were appropriate for terrorists. He noted that U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy, the judge who tried the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, has a 24-hour guard to protect him from revenge attacks by Muslim terrorists. That is a huge burden for a public servant and the public purse to bear.

A little googling confirmed that the judge is indeed under such protection:

Michael Bounds, 47, Jackson, deputy U.S. marshal:

Terrorists had been on his mind hours before two airliners smashed into the World Trade Center.

That’s because Bounds was in New York City on a special detail, helping to protect U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy, who presided over the trial involving the 1993 terrorist bombing of the center. “He has a lifetime detail protection based on the threats against him.”

When the terrorist strike took place on Sept. 11, Bounds helped rush Duffy to a secure location.

Suppose we capture Osama bin Ladin and he is tried in a civilian court in New York. Suppose you are asked to serve on the jury. Suppose you receive threats against your life from Osama’s supporters. Would you still serve? Suppose jurors at a previous terrorist trial had been decapitated by Muslim terrorists. Still willing to serve? Duffy received threats so serious that he has lifetime protection. Would civilian jurors get the same level of protection? Your call.

Muslim terrorists are at war with our society. You can be certain they will target the judges, prosecutors and jurors involved in prosecuting them. Can we give all those people 24-hour protection? Did the Supreme court even consider the danger that civilian judges will face if they convict terrorists.

The Supreme five will not need the protection that Duffy has. They gave our enemies the rights of US citizens. Obama was pleased with that decision. No doubt Osama is too.

Advertisements


Who would you rather buy oil from? The shareholders of American and European oil companies or the state-run oil companies of Iran, Iran, Venezuela, and Mexico? Who should get a share of the trillions of dollars the US spends on importing oil? Us or them?

I note this because I saw Gingrich on Fox last might, and the ever-stupid Alan Colmes kept saying that “studies” show that drilling in the US will only reduce gas prices by a few cents. Even if that was true, it misses the point that the wealth transfer from us to them would be considerably reduced. The current account deficit would move in our direction and the dollar would appreciate. Moreover, millions of new US jobs would be created and tax revenues would increase. What’s not to like about expanding domestic oil production?

Unfortunately, Gingrich failed to make those economic arguments.


Mark Steyn and his publisher were hauled up before a kangaroo court (a.k.a. Human Rights Tribunal) in British Columbia by Muslims “upset” at a quotation from a Muslim imam that appeared in an extract from Steyn’s book that was published in Macleans. That is a high profile case that will be fought in a real court room if the kangaroo court does not dismiss the charges.

The little people have less of a chance standing up to Muslim demands. Take this case in Britain, that Solomonia picked up on. A hair salon owner advertised for an assistant stylist. A Muslim woman applied. She wore a headscarf that covered all her hair to the interview. She wanted the job but she wouldn’t take off the scarf while working. From the Mail report:

A few days later, Bushra duly arrived at the salon.

‘I have to say I didn’t take to her,’ says Sarah. ‘She waltzed into the salon and hung up her coat as though she already had the job.

‘Naturally, I noticed her headscarf. But I presumed that, as she’s a hairdresser, she’d take if off when she was working. In 16 years, I’ve never known any stylist cover their hair with a headscarf. And this particular headscarf came all the way down to her eyebrows and covered her entire hairline.’

Sarah broached the subject with Bushra, who said she would not be removing the garment.

After ten minutes, with the interview complete, Sarah said she would come back to Bushra about the vacancy.

‘As she left, Bushra turned to me and said that she’d been turned down for jobs before,’ says Sarah. ‘And I admit I thought: “Well, what do you expect?”

‘It was not a religious matter. If she’d come in wearing a baseball cap and saying she wouldn’t take it off for work, then she wouldn’t have got the job either.’

This sounds like that old Peter Cook/Dudley Moore skit about a man applying for the part of Tarzan:

Peter: I noticed that, Mr. Spigott. When you have been in the business as long as I have you come to notice these things almost instinctively. Now, Mr. Spigott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan — a role which, traditionally, involves the use of a two-legged actor.

Dudley: Correct.

Peter: And yet you, a unidexter, are applying for the role.

Dudley: Right.

Peter: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement.

Dudley: Very true.

Peter: Well, Mr. Spigott, need I point out to you where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role?

Dudley: Yes, I think you ought to.

Peter: Need I say with overmuch emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.

Dudley: The leg division?

Peter: Yes, the leg division, Mr. Spigott. You are deficient in it — to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That’s what I said when I saw you come in. I said ‘A lovely leg for the role.’ I’ve got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is — neither have you. You fall down on your left.

Dudley: You mean it’s inadequate?

Peter: Yes, it’s inadequate, Mr. Spigott. And, to my mind, the British public is not ready for the sight of a one-legged ape-man swinging through the jungly tendrils.

The British public (the non-Muslim, at least) aren’t ready for an alternative hair sylist who won’t show her own hair. But the PC police have done their best to destroy Sarah. She may well lose her business and livelihood over this case. Common sense has gone out of the window in Britain and Canada.

Steyn’s “America Alone” looks more and more like a roadmap to the future.


Beldar Blog takes Obama to task for this mind-bogglingly ignorant claim:

And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

Mr. Obama, Sir, if they were incapacitated, how come they pulled off 9/11? Because, Mr. Obama, the Egyptian terrorist group that was responsible for the first WTC attack merged with Osama Bin Ladin’s terrorist organization in the 1990s. Osama’s deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, came from the Egyptian wing. So, we might have jailed a few of the terrorists but we did not destroy their organization, their sources of funding, or their leadership. Based on your utter ignorance of the history of Al Qaeda, and the direct link between the two World Trade Center attacks, you have proven yourself to be unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

I know all of America’s enemies in the Muslim world are heads down, butt up five, times a day asking Allah to help you become President of the United States. God help America if that happens.