NYC to Obama: No You Won't

Kevin McCullough
Sunday, November 15, 2009

The Obama administration grossly underestimated the response of the American people in it's decision to try war-field combatants as common thieves in criminal courts handed down this week by Attorney General Holder. The American people were also not impressed that President Obama ducked responsibility in calling it a "prosecutorial" decision. The American people see the waste that these trials will be, and the harm they could generate by allowing them to proceed. Yet if all these things are true of Americans at large, the residents of NYC realize them in greater magnification.

Realizing that any criminal proceedings to move forward would take place on the same 13 by 2 mile island where the single biggest act of war against our nation was ever committed, New Yorkers feel strongly that such enemy combatants, taken directly off the battlefields, should never be afforded Miranda and other rights associated with being citizens of the United States.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder have also grossly mistaken the ferocity with which this case will bubble up and that the inevitable media circus that will ensue will doom the welfare of America in multiple ways.

These trial proceedings will reopen the still mending emotional, psychological, and physical wounds of 9/11. In deciding with such reckless abandon to make a political pay-off to the far left, and the radical Islamic sympathizers they ignorantly embolden, President Obama is ripping the stitches out of the hearts of those that have wondered if closure will ever come. When the Attorney General promises court room cameras and complete transparency of the proceedings, he seems to ignore the possibility of radicals on camera shouting inaudible commands, jibes, and insults at those in the room as well as those sitting in caves across the globe.

The proceedings will create a bulls-eye again specifically on the most attractive target in America, and be used as an on-going tool of recruitment. Without question, terrorists may have been upset over the treatment of their colleagues at Gitmo, but striking back at the base was a logistical impossibility. Not so with a city of endless train and subway tubes, elevator shafts, a metro area with a nuclear reactor only miles away, and an island that could be isolated and brought to a halt given the right combination of carnage and chaos.

The proceedings are an unnecessary move on the part of the administration to try these particular four terrorists at all. They have all confessed, and even bragged, on the record, of their exploits and parts played in the single worst moment in America's history. With on-the-record confessions, the seeking of the death penalty was insured through military tribunal. What New Yorkers are now left with after the administration's move are mere words that Holder will "seek" the death penalty. And President Obama added his "assurance" that they would receive "the most exacting form of justice" possible. Yet if that was a foregone conclusion, why must he give assurances?

The proceedings are a not-so-veiled attempt to continue to throw negative attention on to the previous administration. In a move that gives birth to crass classlessness, the real endgame of this matter is to reveal military and intelligence secrets for the public and our enemies to judge for themselves as to their legitimate use. The goal of Attorney General Holder in essence becomes the beginning of the re-election campaign for President Barack Obama, and to create a way for George Bush to still be part of the discussion when the trial finally becomes a reality two to three years from now.

The proceedings are also a move that spends enormous amounts of money in an era where we have none extra to spend. The process for each of these four terrorists now begins all over again. Discovery, testimony, evidence that has all been worked and diligently put in place for dealing with enemy combatants taken in acts of war from the battlefield must now be sifted through a different standard. Depending on the political leanings of the judge assigned the case, it is even likely that many gaps will be left in the evidence path, and thus a jury will be instructed not to consider certain sections of otherwise admissible evidence.

I am hesitant to believe that even the Obama administration with all of it's harshest left leanings would genuinely and truly want the mastermind and associates of 9/11 to ever walk free. But that possibility exists.

When O.J. Simpson was found innocent, they had his blood, mixed with Nicole Brown Simpson's on the scene, and in trails from one room to the next. And yet he walked. Should a similar outcome occur in this case, it would not shock me if we as tax-payers would be responsible for the cost of transporting them to their jihadist homelands where they go right back to work attempting to strike America again.

The average New Yorker understands all of this, as does easily the average American.

They also clearly see that President Obama and his minions like Holder are willing to play games with national security in order to make a pandering play to the minimalist base that still supports them strongly.

This travesty will not sit well in New York elections in 2010 and 2012 and unless President Obama decides to make a move that concedes these basic concerns as legitimate by those who lost the most in our nation's worst nightmare, he best consider the consequences.

New York City may be a town of liberals, but even we New Yorkers, in large numbers, on the issue of national security are willing to set aside many other concerns to insure the safety of our nation and our children. And along those lines Congressman Peter King pledges to fight with all his might for the next 45 days to overturn this amazing mistake by what can now easily be seen as the most arrogant administration ever.

One last parting note needs to be tucked in the back of the minds of the Obama administration, even if it doesn't give them much comfort.

I wonder what a Democratic Presidential Primary candidate in 2012 by the name of Hillary Clinton will have to say to her fellow New Yorkers about such a wrong-headed and utterly foolish gesture.

Stay the course Mr. President, and we might just get an answer to that question.