Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Why Are Democrats Playing Politics With Guantanamo Prisoners?

To quickly summarize the case against the trials:

1] The trials are wholly unnecessary; the Administration is holding some enemy combatants without trial and trying others through the military commission system, thus conceding that it has alternatives. As a result, any risks, expenses or other downsides of the trials are being undertaken solely for the purpose of empty symbolism.
2] The trials risk disclosure of sensitive intelligence information and sources. This is the most significant objection of all.
3] The trials create a heightened risk or incentive for a terrorist attack/jailbreak effort in Manhattan.
4] The additional security required to guard against #3 will cost the federal and city governments a fortune, interfere with the administration of justice in a busy federal district and busy federal prison, add to the traffic and delays already extant in lower Manhattan, and place a great burden on the jurors, judge, and prosecutors.
5] The detainees, as they have shown in the past, are especially dangerous to guards, a problem that’s more acute when in transit or in civilian prisons than in a facility like Guantanamo that’s designed to house them.
6] The trials will give these extremists the opportunity to grandstand.
7] There is, inherent in civilian criminal trials and given the likelihood that the defense will seek to play politics with the trial, some risk of one or more acquittals or hung juries that would give a propaganda victory to the terrorists and destroy what little symbolic value the trials have if the defendants are remanded to custody after being acquitted.
8] There is a risk that, to guard against #7, rules and precedents governing criminal procedure will be distorted in ways that have lingering effects on the regular justice system.
9] Trying terrorists in civilian courts perversely rewards their war crimes; they have not earned the rights of either American citizens nor lawful combatants under international law, and should not be granted them.
Well, the polls are in, and the news should not be encouraging to the Administration. First, the Rasmussen poll, conducted nationally:
Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters oppose the Obama administration’s decision to try the confessed chief planner of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of voters favor the president’s decision not to try the suspects by military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are now imprisoned. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure whether it was the right decision or not.
Only 30% of Americans said suspected terrorists should have access to U.S. courts
As Rasmussen notes from prior polls, “Most voters have consistently opposed moving any of the Guantanamo prisoners to prisons in the United States out of safety concerns.” And public awareness is high:
Seventy-five percent (75%) of all voters say they have followed news stories about the decision to try the suspected terrorists in a civilian court at least somewhat closely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say they have been following very closely. Only six percent (6%) are not following the news about the decision at all.
Locally, the Marist poll of New York City residents (H/T) finds a small plurality of the overwhelmingly Democratic City in favor of the trials - but a significant group opposed, and a larger minority among New Yorkers than nationally who are concerned about the elevated security risks:
45% of residents think it’s a good idea to have the trial in New York City while 41% believe it’s a bad one. 14% just aren’t sure.
What about the risk of future terrorist attacks? Although 47% say the location of the trial will not affect the likelihood of another terrorist attack occurring in New York City, a significant proportion are concerned the trial will put a bull’s eye on the city. In fact, 40% believe having the trial in New York City will increase the possibility of another terrorist attack in the area. 7% think it will be less of a target, and another 6% are unsure about the implications of the trial for the city’s security.
The left-wing response to the criticisms of the trials has been to focus only on point #3 above and essentially throw a tantrum, accusing anyone concerned with the risk of an attack of either cowardice or fear-mongering. As I have explained at some length before, this is shtick, not argument, and especially ridiculous given some of the people making it. Thus, we have people like left-wing activist Greg Sargent getting so wrapped up in their own shtick that they try to spin the Rasmussen poll as a victory, even in the face of the public being against them on the bottom line:
[P]ublic opposition is not a response to all the lurid fearmongering we’ve heard from Rudy Giuliani and other diehard anti-terror warriors. It’s more rooted in a sense that the justice system isn’t a proper venue to prosecute terrorism, because it places suspected terrorists - symbolically, perhaps more than legally - on an equal footing with your run-of-the-mill suspected murderers….While a majority does oppose the trial, it appears that most Americans aren’t quite as fearful of it as Rep. Shadegg is.
Sargent further notes of the Marist poll: “Opposition to trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a New York court is almost entirely driven by old, white, and Republican voters.” Well, good thing none of those groups is a significant voting bloc, eh?
A few more such victories, as Phyrrus said, and Obama and his fans are finished.

Grab Your Guns And Bible 'Cuz Obamas Coming

As if we didn't have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope it isn't registered!  It begins... more Freedom gone...the right to protect yourself and your family gone!  Now ALL GUNS must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own.  It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.  This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009, by the Obama staff.  BUT, this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986.  This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all.  Trust Obama?  You must be kidding!  The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage:  You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.  You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do.
Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.  Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009:  Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.  It has begun....  Whatever Obama's "Secret Master Plan" is... this is just the 'tip of the iceberg!'  Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.  This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.  Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
1) It is registered
2) You are fingerprinted
3) You supply a current Driver's License
4) You supply your Social Security number
5) You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
Each update change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25. Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.  There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision.  Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 years in prison.
If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along.  Any hunters in your family?  Pass this along.  This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.  This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.
Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.