The Fierce Moral Urgency Of Backpeddling

Obama: Alleged 9/11 leader will be executed

"And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court."

The above statement has a completely different connotation for the average American than it does for the average Jihadist.

Obama - define "justice for the American people" and who is exactly is "we".

Terrorists have to be judged under military law.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed.

Wouldn't it be better to sentence him to an eternal government job of picking flyshit out of pepper with boxing gloves on?

What a sad and pathetic spectacle. I thought from the beginning that Obama was an empty suit, but I never imagined he could be this much of a dim bulb.
How stupid is he going to look when he tries to close Guantanamo and send the bad boys to a max security prison in Illinois, while the terrorist's lawyers file suit to stay in Gitmo. This whole story isn't half as bizarre as its going to get.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/the-irony-of-all-ironies-lawyer-of-gitmo-detainees-says-theyll-likely-sue-to-stay-in-guantanamo.html

I am very glad that Obama doesn't have the courage of his idiotic convictions.

(Notice how, in the MSNBC piece from Nov. 2009, where Obama is defening the idea of prosecuting KSM in criminal court, he assumes that there will be a conviction, and an execution, as does Holder. I can just hear it: "Are you, Mr. President, saying that it is an impossibility that my client could be aquitted? Are you saying that this is a Show Trial?"

Good thing he's a lawyer, so he understands this stuff.)

This guy can change his position quicker than a pole dancer.

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."

Barak Groucho 'bama

"I haven't gone back on my word, I've just changed my mind."

Barak Stalin-'bama

If this guy keeps this up, he'll be threatening Ontario's Dolly "Pinnochio" McGuinty as the King of Reversals.

The only reason he is doing this is because his statements about a fair trial and execution (a presumption of guilt) would cause a mistrial in civilian courts and prevent KSM from getting a fair hearing, which means no trial and release.

Interesting. One has to wonder about motives.

The fact that, according to law, the statements by both Hodder and Obama, soothing though they were, that America mustn't fret, that the Gitmo Gang would most certainly be convicted and sentenced, thus nullified the [pristine validity of the court trial - didn't seem to bother the White House Gang.

Hodder and the WH Gang are utopian ideologues; they are socialists, deeply committed to the irrational emotionalism that the military complex is inherently evil and therefore that only a non-military trial would be 'just'. Even if it was unjust because its outcome was declared before the trial. Heh.

Why is the military evil? Because its goals are to win, and winning, to a socialist, suggests the capitalist theme that A person is better than B person; we all know that this is not allowed in socialism.

Obama is not an idealogue; he's a pathological narcissist; his commitment is strictly to himself as Himself. It's all about his perception of power and his control over You.

Obama, as The Power, will not back down on any decision because that would dilute His Power by handing the decision over to the Dissenters. Therefore, why is the WH changing its mind on this trial?

Is it about power? Obama wants to close Guantanamo Prison. Not for ideological reasons but to cement his power among the voter ideologues of the Left. He needs Congress to give him the money to do this. If I recall, he had previously declared that no G-inmate would end up in the US. That's yet another promise flung out the door.

So, to consolidate His power among the left, Obama must close Guantanamo, and therefore, must do a trade off with Congress. Note that the reasons are not about justice, not about establishing a correct process of dealing with terrorists. The reasons are purely and only about political power. Obama's Power.

now some smart lawyer will ask for a mis-trial.

another day with the teleprompter off.

Add

Worst
Lawyer
Ever.

to Obama's accomplishments.

There may be another reason why this is being done. When it was first announced that the administration was considering trying KSM in a civilian court, opposition from the right pointed out that a civilian trial would allow KSM's attorneys full disclosure privileges. These privileges would include access to all types of intel including intel procedures. It was thought that no prisoner's conviction was worth the national security risk associated with the declassification of intel secrets.

If there were any truth to this analysis, it does make sense. An ordinary Democrat would have known this and this was one of the reasons the administration received bipartisan opposition. Obama is not an ordinary Democrat; Obama has had a way of not really researching his positions, and is, in some cases, developing his policy after the election - on the fly as it were.

"the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States."

Wouldn't it be cheaper to ask Congress for the funding it needs to fly this creep back to Guantanamo?

I don't know how much credit Congress has to address any funding; considering Team USA's hockey team couldn't borrow a goal on Sunday.

That "fair trial" (wink, wink), followed by a certain execution still gets me.

This seems like something straight out of an old Western movie. The evil sheriff tells the prisoner that he'll be sure to get a fair trial and "then we'll hang you". Several posters have already mentioned it. Hasn't Obama created about the most prejudicial situation for the accused?

I sincerely hope that ET's analysis of Obama is correct. If it's all about him and not really about ideology, then Obama is somewhat less likely to be able to cause permanent damage to US society. And what damage is caused is likely easier to repair when he's gone.

If he really is an ideologue, and he works effectively with the ideologues he has in his administration, he could really wreak havoc.

Backpedaling not backpeddling

BJG- the fact that Obama himself is not an ideologue but is a pathological narcissist doesn't mean that he can't 'wreak havoc'. He most certainly can.

Remember, Obama as an individual is a narcissist. A pathological narcissist.
As a politician, he's embedded within the socialist ideology because it, unlike conservativism, sets up an Elite Class of Rulers over the unwashed and powerless masses.

So, you've got an individual, with immense powers as president, whose sole focus is on Himself in Total Control of You..embedded within a political agenda that promotes that same notion of Total Control of You. In this case, it's total control by the Elite Set, the Intelligentsia.

The two are entangled, each with their own causality (narcissism, socialism) and with the same result: Total Control over You and the demise of individual freedom.

Hey Kate, there's the Tea Party and now the Coffee Party, what'ya say we start a Cuppuccino Party?

A juxta 'bout the leftistrOOfer; and, the Other leftist.
...-

"About the Pentagon shooter; Update: Stop playing games, MSM. John Patrick Bedell was a registered Democrat"

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/05/about-the-pentagon-shooter/
...-

"Obama presidency on the road to nowhere

There are signs that Barack Obama's fledgling administration has hit a dead end.

A growing idea has taken hold of the political intelligentsia in Washington as Barack Obama's young presidency has sunken into paralysis, only a year after he entered the White House.

On Obama's side, the frustration is palpable. His supporters argue that modern America is ungovernable because the political system has become so unwieldy it is broken.

How else, they ask, can it be explained that a president who won 53 per cent of the popular vote and helped to win big majorities for his Democratic Party in both houses of congress cannot get anything done?

It is a compelling argument, at face value."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464993/posts