As the Justice Department seeks a new venue for the trial, they are looking at having the civilian trial of the 9/11 five, tried on a military base.
The thinking is that a military base will be a ore secure location that will discourage any retaliatory terrorist threats from taking place as a result of the highly publicized trial. In addition to the security benefits of having the trial on a military base, it is cheaper than trying to secure a whole city. It will also be far less disruptive to the communities adjacent to where these civilians trials would take place.
As the Justice Departments searches for a new venue, using what they learned from attempts to have the civilian trial of the 9/11 terrorists in New York City, the President is now earmarking $200 million dollars to cover the expenses that the trial incur, wherever it is held. In New York City, between the Mayor’s office ands the Police Commissioners office, the total expense for the City was projected to be $1 billion.
The new budget appropriation for the prosecution of the 9/11 terrorists and the search and rationale for changing the venue of the trial to a military base, brings rise to the question of why did the Administration decide against the prescribed military tribunal that the five 9/11 enemy combatants were originally suppose tried in.
The entire episode has led many to question just how seriously the President takes the War on Terror. Many believe that President Obama’s desire to prosecute those who have pledged themselves to a jihad, a holy war, against the United States, as average citizens.
In an attempt to force the President’s hand,make it imposssible to try the 9/11 terrorists in a military court, Republicans are now proposing legislation that would prohibit tfrom funding the prosecution of any 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court. That measure is being proposed later this week by Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Similar legislation has already been proposed by New York Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island.
King’s legislation would prohibit federal funds for the trials of any detainees who have or are held at Guantanamo Bay.
Both bills are meant to force the Justice Department to try either the 9/11 terroists in a military tribunal.
Although I applaud the intentions of these lawmakers, we all know that these “republican” bills will not see the light of day in this liberal controlled regime, despite their sudden, I suggest quite tongue-in-cheekily, desire for “bi-partisanship”. Additionally, before Republicans even get the chance to have Democrats oppose the bill on the record, Democrats will have the ability to say that Republicans tried to cut off the funds that would allow us to prosecute terrorists. Politics is very tangled web that is weaved by very twisted people.
In the meantime, one Mayor is begging for the trial to be held in his town,.
The Mayor of Newburgh, New York, Nicholas Valentine wants his financially strapped city to host the trial in their newly refurbished federal court house.
Newburgh is a poor city. On top of that, they still have not come up with all the cash to pay for their newly refurbished courthouse. So Mayor Valentine says that he knows some town is going to benefit from a community assistance package that will inevitably come with the trial, so why not let it be his town? Hence the President’s $200 million earmark for the trial. Valentine also says that the trial will bring in tourism dollars. So at least the Mayor of one sleepy and depressed town sees the 9/11 trial as something to be exploited for lots of money and in this case, a way to pay off the refurbishment of the court house which he didn’t have them money for in the first place. Leaders of the county that Newburgh is diagree with the Mayor though. They are not so keen on the type of so-called tourism that terrorists will bring.
All things considered, President Obama botched this up in every way possible. It began when he promised to close Guantanamo Bay, a promise he still has not been able to fulfill. He botched it up even more when he decided to give foreign terrorist and enemy combatants the rights of American citizens and try them in civilian courts, where war crimes should not be tried.
Which brings us back to the question of how serious does the President really take the War on Terror?
Sometimes he sounds strongly committed to aggressively prosecuting that war. But his decisions do not match his rhetoric. This is a point driven home by Senator Susan Collins (Rhino-R, ME). A liberal at heart, even Senator Collins sees that the President’s hands are not wrapped very tightly around the anti-terrorism effort. In the Republican weekly radio address, she oddly, but strongly articulated that point. (see clip below)
I for one stated that the decision to try the five captured and professed terrorists behind 9/11 that we have in custody as civilians was wrong. I also have repeatedly stated that the decision to not prosecute them in a military tribunal will come back to bite the President in the rear end, come election time, which is right about when this trial should be concluding.
As each day passes my expectations are being confirmed.
The unraveling of the people’s confidence in the President’s ability to effectively wage war against terrorists and protect Americans from fundamental Islamic extremists, hell bent on killing Americans, has begun.
Hopefully the terrorists will not be able to take advantage of the vulnerabilities that the President’s lack of leadership has left us open to.