Obama approves of moving the terrorist trials out of the Big Apple, as if THAT were the real problem !!!

Click on map to enlarge
The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects.

The dramatic turnabout came hours after one time supporter of the disruptive terrorist trials, Mayor Bloomberg, said he would "prefer that they did it elsewhere" and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

While this is being reported as the morning's top-of-the-fold news story, the real story is found in the Obama Administration's refusal to move the trial out of country and back into a military court. It has recently been reported that the trial in the Federal Court House in N.Y. City would cost more than $230 million per year just in security costs to The City. Moving the trial may cut that cost but assuming the trial last 3 years, the price tag for this trial will cost more than $400 million total regardless of where in New York it is held. If held in military court in GITMO, the cost would be pennies on the dollar by comparison. Understand that the 1996 conviction of the "blind sheik" took 3 years. No one ever gave a full accounting of the costs involved.

Apparently, Obama and company do not understand the national complaint. It is not that the trial is being held in New York City, but that it is being held in a civilian court whether in New York City or PoDunk, Indiana.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who led the prosecution in the case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind sheik") for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, said public trials will provide a "banquet of intelligence information" for the vast Al Qaeda network, especially operatives in Afghanistan.

"It's a massively stupid decision when we're actually at war with them," McCarthy said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We have to give them all kinds of information about our methods of intelligence that can only make them more efficient at killing us."

More than this, both Attorney General Eric Holder and Bararck Obama have tried and convicted the 5 terrorist in the media's eye. Obama on one recent occasion defended his decision to persecute these men in civilian court by arguing that the complaints would disappear after their conviction and execution. It is not known if this expressed opinion will become an argument used by the Defense or not, but it is certain that the statement should never have been made by either Obama or Holder, both lawyers in their own right. It can be argued that these statements have polluted the jury pool.

More than this, the fact remains that these men were captured on the battlefield, not arrested in an Interpol sting. They were not mirandized "in a timely fashion" and most of the information against them, including their very capture, occurred before they were told of their rights in an American civilian court setting. It is not known to what extent these facts will influence the events relating to their trial nor how much of the evidence against them will be thrown out as a result.

But of course, this is not simply a trial about the 9-11 master mind and his minions. In the end, Obama and company hope to put the Bush Administration on trial with regard to the harsh interrogation techniques used to gain important information from KSM. He was waterboarded 183 times before the end of 2003, when the practice was banned by the Bush Administration. Nearly all of the critical information relating to terrorist plotting and organization at that time, was made known to authorities because of these "harsh interrogation methods," potentially saving thousands of American lives and preempting untold disaster.

Will Bush's persecution of the "war on terror" become a center-piece in the KSM trials? How much evidence is in jeopardy because civilian legal protections were not administered on the battlefield? Is it possible that these men could win their battle in court and be found "not guilty" ? Who will be a "jury of their peers?" How much "top secret" information will be requested by their defense attorney's? How much of our Homeland Security procedures will be made known to larger terrorist community as a result of this trial?

In asking the above questions, Midknight Review hopes to illustrate the stupidity of this coming trial and the harmful consequences of its prosecution in civilian court. A military trial would marginalize circumstances that are a "big deal" in a civilian court. It is clear that Mr Obama has the right to order a military trial, even at this late date. Instead, he decided the real problem had to do with which corner in Civilian America the trial was to be held.

Again, moving the trial around the corner from its present local is not the problem. Obama has put his Administration is serious jeopardy and for no good reason. As we have stated several times in the past, Obama is proving himself to be a stupid man. --- jds
.
.