Skip to content

9/11 Suspects to Use U.S. Foreign Policy as Defense for Killing Americans

November 23, 2009

Associated Press

The Associated Press offered a superficial glance at a complex and alarming update in the upcoming trial of the five 9/11 defendants,  leaving me to wonder where is their thoughtful, penetrating examination of this judicial travesty about to take place in New York City. There is certainly no shortage of critical questions in want of answers.

The AP reported Sunday that the five 9/11 defendants to be tried in New York City will not deny their role in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but will nonetheless be pleading “not guilty.” This, to me, initially seemed a sure sign that the defense attorney feels compelled to observe no ethical responsibilities to the American judicial system as his clients attempt to put U.S. foreign policy on trial.

9/11 defense attorney Scott Fenstermaker

The attorney assigned to defend the five terrorists on trial, Scott Fenstermaker, reported Sunday that all five of his clients are also planning to use the “stage” they are given to deliver their radical Jihadist message and explain why they believe more Americans must die. The Obama Administration can’t say they weren’t warned – again, and again, and again.

There is the possibility that Fenstermaker has chosen the path of least resistance in representing his clients, for the sake of self-preservation.  There can be no doubt this case will have a significant impact on his career – for better or worse. But what we may perceive during this trial as over-zealous representation may be the actions of a defense attorney caught between the rock of the American justice system and the hard place of representing hardened terrorists who would stop at nothing to continue their mission against America.

Either way, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration, which pulls his strings, opted to take great risks with a trial in our civilian judicial system, and for no clear, justifiable reason.  Even if the trial concludes without incident, the results would not justify the risk. If it does not go without incident, the results could be catastrophic.

Holder’s defense to the outrage following the announcement of the trial in NYC was weak, aloof and dismissive of the true weight of his choice.

“I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is,” Holder said. “I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be, either.”

The blatant arrogance and ignorance exhibited by the Obama Administration and Holder is of far less concern than the wider implications to our judicial system. Merely saying that these five terrorists will have the same rights as any other American defendant in our court system doesn’t begin to convey the realities of the situation in which our justice system has been placed.

John Yoo, a columnist with the Philadelphia Inquirer and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, made up for the AP’s lack of insight on the trial when he wrote extensively on the disaster about to unfold:

“…the positive benefits [of a civilian trial] remain obscure to the point of vanishing. All that is known for certain are the heavy costs:

Giving Mohammed and his fellow terrorists the same constitutional rights as any U.S. citizen accused of a crime risks our nation’s most vital intelligence secrets. Mohammed can demand that the government turn over all of its information on him and tell him how it was acquired or it risks a mistrial or acquittal. Soviet moles like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen used the same tactic to bargain the government down from the death penalty. Ordinarily, such information does not harm the public because the crime has already been committed. But the release of intelligence during hostilities can be disastrous when it informs the enemy of our knowledge, capabilities, and intentions.”

He went on to say:

“This red herring [Holder’s statement] distracts from the administration’s failure to explain why the benefits of using civilian courts outweigh the costs to the war effort. It certainly doesn’t help those who are already protected by the Bill of Rights and can be tried in civilian courts. If anything, their rights are at risk, not just by a failure to convict terrorists who killed almost 3,000 people, but by the inevitable judicial compromises that must balance the requirements of a fair public trial with the demands of protecting wartime secrets. Those compromises will no longer be limited to the special context of military courts in wartime, but will become part of the law that governs all Americans.”

Until the trial concludes, Americans will be forced to hold their breath and hope the Obama/Holder decision doesn’t cost us all a great deal in life and/or liberties.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements
15 Comments
  1. shane comeback permalink
    November 23, 2009 4:34 am

    I tried posting a comment and got a notice “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.” WTF?

  2. SHmuel "Sam" HaLevi permalink
    November 23, 2009 4:47 am

    There are some advantages to being a bit away from the frying pan that is the Saetoro Obama administration…
    The decision to make of the 9/11 masterminds a show is one of the most damaging acts amongst an avalanche of such irresponsible acts by the abovementioned ensemble.
    The consequences are already in place as other such aberrants found solace on the fact that the US rolled back. Sufficient warnings are sounded but I doubt the genuflecting Saetoro Obama will heed. That people has somber, nefarious plans for one and all Americans and us all.

    SHmuel

  3. Joseph White permalink
    November 23, 2009 6:03 am

    He should tell his clients to keep their mouths shut and plead guilty (Something they’ve already done in military tribunals,) and hope that we don’t shoot them on the front lawn.

    For them to be able to stand up in open court and give their reasons why they killed 3000 citizens, yet say they aren’t guilty, (Isn’t that an oxymoron? They aren’t guilty, but here why they did it,) is not what the court is for, giving political views is what the leftist press is for.

    This will just allow them to call for American deaths and scream about their death cult.

    If I were the judge, I’d close the court to only the 5 defendants (That still makes me mad,) and their lawyers. Press should be barred and no reporting should be allowed.

  4. kbond permalink
    November 23, 2009 6:34 am

    This trial, like some many other stories of late will make mockery of the U.S. justice system. I invite everyone to read the history of and aftermath of WW2. I think that was the last time we had “real men” and “real statesman” running the country. Men with common sense and courage, the very two things that you can not find anywhere along the Beltway – even if you had blood hounds to assist. There was no divide among party lines when it came to right and wrong. WW2 generation was indeed the greatest generation that ever walked the earth.

    Today’s political correctness and political meandering and corruption will be the downfall of the U>S>A>.

    God save the USA…

    • David Albion permalink
      November 23, 2009 7:14 pm

      Well said!

  5. oldwolves permalink
    November 23, 2009 6:57 am

    Since these non citizens have been given the rights and privileges of Americans, when they are found not guilty, (In which I have no doubt),will they be released and sent back to their respective countries as free men and hero’s of Islam?

    I have no doubt because the case has already been tainted. The president has all ready confirmed them guilty in public. No trial yet and he has pronounced them guilty. The attorney’s will claim the inability to get a fair trial in America. Unless he of course gets a fellow Muslim on the jury. Then he’s guaranteed a misstrial. And if there are no Muslims on the jury then how does one say he’s had a jury of his peers? Does that mean we have to recruit perspective jurors from the Taliban? This whole monstrosity, win, lose or draw, will only end badly what ever the outcome. Why do you think the MSM and the Associated Press focus on Sarah Pailins hotel bills? Got to cover for O.

  6. Carterthewriter permalink
    November 23, 2009 7:14 am

    The only good to come out of this decision is that it points out clearly the direction Obama’s administration is taking us. If the defendent admits quilt, why put on the show other than to promote a one party system. The two party system does even seem to be effective, either so this travesty should make it very clear to Americans that we no longer have any confidence in the direction our representatives have taken.

    Everyone knows what is wrong in Washington, and now we must find someone who has the courage to refuse the bribe, who puts the group ahead of the individual, who stands behind his words, and who isn’t narcissitic.

  7. November 23, 2009 5:57 pm

    The photo illustrating this post (on the main blog page, before the link to this page) reminded me of The Brady Bunch title sequence. So I cobbled this together: http://bit.ly/5PWN4K

  8. Mark permalink
    November 23, 2009 8:44 pm

    Remember, AG Eric Holder headed-off prosicuting the Philadelphia black panthers for voter intimidation as not being worth it. His judgement seems clouded by anti- American & racial sentiments. I miss Bush

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      November 23, 2009 8:49 pm

      This time, he stuck his neck out toooooo far.

  9. PRCS permalink
    November 23, 2009 9:01 pm

    “…his clients are also planning to use the “stage” they are given to deliver their radical Jihadist message…”

    On the bright side, delivering their message will help the American public–including those who write articles for this blog–understand that there is no such thing as ‘radical’ jihad.

    There is jihad (struggle). That some aspects of jihad have involved brutal and bloody actions against ‘unbelievers’ over the last 1400 years–and do so to this day–does not make those actions ‘radical’.

    Those who label Islam’s very teachings and the behavior of Muslim literalists–as all Muslims are expected to be–simply do not know what Islam really teaches.

    So, those of you who persist in such labeling: how about telling us what you think separates ‘radical’ jihad from its everyday, run-of-the-mill variety.

    Or, to take it a step further, define ‘radical’ Islam.

    • Karen Northon permalink
      November 24, 2009 5:14 am

      Two years ago, I worked closely with three men – Martyn Burke, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev – to make sure a documentary they made got its due time on TV to educate Americans on the difference between Islam and radical Islamists.

      Take a look at this article – http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26134

  10. PRCS permalink
    November 24, 2009 11:23 am

    Thank you for responding. So, let me be clear.

    “…the difference between Islam and radical Islamists…”
    Islam is a written ideology; a complete way of life in which there exists no separation between the sacred and the secular. Islamists–those who would reconstitute the caliphate and impose the shari’ah upon the entire world, as Islam teaches–are its literalist adherents; the radical label being irrelevant and misleading.

    From the article you cited (among several of which I read at that time):

    “intimidated by Islamist extremists”

    Would they be less intimidated by mere Islamists?

    Moderate Muslims?

    Moderate Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods. Neither is in full compliance with the teachings of their respective belief systems, and their selective compliance does not negate those teachings.

    “They wanted to portray the Islamists in a way that would represent them as being the truer strain of Islam, the truer representatives of Islam.”

    They are.

    “And we said they represent a very virulent, aggressive form of Islam…”

    They are literalists.

    “but the moderates within Islam…have an equally valid voice within Islam.”

    Their collective voice, loud by its silence, is NOT valid. It obfuscates the truth.

    The essential problem with such labeling (by journalists, politicians, retired generals, and others) is their erroneous inference that ‘radicals’ and ‘extremists’ have hijacked and perverted Islam’s true, peaceful teachings.

    Islam teaches what it does. The degree of the acceptance and interpretation of those teachings by individual Muslims–from strict literalism to mere self identification as a Muslim–is what needs to be identified in these articles.

    Muslim literalists are not extremists. They are devout.

    How often have you heard of Orthodox Jews being called extremists?

    Regards.

Trackbacks

  1. 9/11 Suspects to Use U.S. Foreign Policy as Defense for Killing Americans «
  2. scott fenstermaker | news headlines

Comments are closed.