Nov 18 2010
Incompetence Writ Large
I have written extensively about the mistakes made by this administration regarding terrorism. One thing Team Obama fears more than anything else is congressional investigations into how so many terrorists made it through our defenses and just barely failed to kill hundreds of innocent people, from the skies over Detroit to Times Square in NY City. Terrorist acts only stopped because of observant citizens and clumsy bomb making.
But today the incompetence of President Obama and AG Holder shines brightly, for all to see:
Is there any better proof that Team Obama’s preferred approach to fight ing terror — through civilian courts — is dangerously misguided than yesterday’s acquittal of one of the 1998 US embassy bombers on all but one of 285 charges?
Ahmed Ghailani, the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in a civilian court, was convicted of only a single count of conspiracy to destroy government property and buildings using explosives.
Murder? No.
Terrorism? No.
He was up to his ears in a plot that took 224 lives, and he’s not a terrorist?
Preposterous.
One of the reasons Americans are getting a free sexual assault at airports these days is because Obama, Holder and Brennan dialed back our warning systems and took their eyes off our enemies. They naively assumed being political correct was better than being vigilant. Because they relaxed our defenses, going so far as to ban the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘war on terror’, we have are now facing an increased threat because our enemies sense the weakness in our current leaders.
Now that Holder has proven how dumb he really is, it is time he retire – before someone gets killed.
Update: While reading Jennifer Rubin’s and Rep Peter King’s take on this travesty I had a sad epiphany:
In a case where Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was facing 285 criminal counts, including hundreds of murder charges, and where Attorney General Eric Holder assured us that ‘failure is not an option,’ the jury found him guilty on only one count and acquitted him of all other counts including every murder charge.
It dawned on me why Holder assumed he could use the court system to bring justice – he thought the American people sitting on juries would ignore the rule of law, especially on evidence, and rule the man guilty as charged no matter what! Liberals hate rules and break them all the time (it comes from their lazy intellects). To them rules are what rulers break due to their vaunted status.
I don’t think it ever occurred to Holder that a jury of citizens would follow the rule of law to the ‘T’, and ignore all information not presented as valid evidence in the courtroom. Holder really thought Americans would simply ignore the law and make a mockery of our court system and rule this obvious mass murderer guilty.
What does that say about the man charged to enforce this nation’s laws?
I am very sympathetic to those who make the case that the new invasive searches constitute a 4th Amendment violation of civil liberties. (Not surprisingly, they are most strongly defended by those for whom the Constitution is just an old piece of paper)
Unlike modern 2,000 page monstrosities, the 4th Amendment is very succinct and very direct:
“Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Focus on the very first right listed: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” This is every bit the equivalent of the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, or any other freedom enumerated by our Constitution. And there are NO exceptions listed.
Does anyone want to argue that there should be exceptions? Then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!!!! Don’t just let the government ignore the Bill of Rights anytime it feels it has a justification!
Key Phrase #2: SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED
Key Phrase #3: PROBABLE CAUSE
“Probable Cause” means that the searcher has at least some scintilla of evidence which would lead him to suspect that the person being searched may have some item which would be subject to seizure. This does not have to be much, courts have held that it can be the barest of justifications – but it has to be SOMETHING!
Random invasive searches of everyone can NEVER meet this standard, which is why they have NEVER been allowed before in this nation’s history! (Things such as license checks and drunk driver checkpoints are different because they are not invasive – they only move to search and seizure IF some form of evidence turns up at the initial questioning)
There is NO utilitarian argument that can be made to violate the Constitution – the Constitution is a Document that our government is required to live by REGARDLESS of the consequences, and this is a very good thing – it blocks tyrannical governments from adopting fears of the moment as justifications for yanking our rights away. As I said before, if we truly can’t survive while respecting these rights, then CHANGE the Constitution, don’t ignore it!
The more I think about this, the more I am forced to conclude that these invasive searches are an outrageous violation of the 4th Amendment, done on a vast scale, and should be curtailed immediately. If Napolitano refuses, she should be brought up on Impeachment charges in front of the next Congress, which they have the right to do.
I agree. I remember when President Obama was being questioned about the KSM trial and he responded that he was guilty so it was certain that he would be found guilty in a civilian trial.
Another day, another illustration of incompetence. Wouldn’t have been easier to not bother electing him to see what he might do, and how incompetent he really might be?
Or is destroying your country that much fun.
Hey why not, we have to pass the bill to know what is in it? Who blew the joke?
“Liberals hate rules and break them all the time (it comes from their lazy intellects)”
I think that this has come about because of a cheapening and corruption of the civil rights movement. At the height of the movement in the 1960s people broke the law, consequences be damned including going to jail, because the segregation laws were perceived to be unfair if not down right immoral (and they were). It’s now devolved into “I feel that a law is unfair, therefore I’ll ignore it” but with no willingness to accept any consequences. The result is disrespect for the law on by many on the left who consider themselves the heirs of the civil rights movement.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by kcrouch and Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Incompetence Writ Large http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/15456 […]
WWS, nice post. Study the Patriot Act if you want to learn more about the loss of liberty and the 4th amendment. A very bad piece of legislation. Andrew Napolitano, who I really like has written much about this. And of course, his show on Fox Business Network, has just gone 5 days per week, 8:00 pm.
I’m impressed with the Fox Business Network. I watch the Judge and Stossel.
Take care, good post!
Woodrow Wilson started the term, “living constitution” and the second bill of rights.
So if you don’t want to change the Constitution, then ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Commerce clause is not the only reason but our judicial branch has twisted its interpretation of the Constitution so bad that the other reasons have become so moot.
Why? Moral relativism.
Unfortunately, our children is learning moral relativism by our progressive school system.
It’s time to take back our public schools to bring back the moral and civil society that allows and encourage people to live with their own individual liberties.
I hope that Ghalaini is the last GITMO to be tried in our civil court system and that all future enemies like him are treated as war terrorists that the Geneva Treaty do not cover. Thank goodness Reagan refused to sign proposal I.
A 4 minute interview from yesterday’s Freedom Watch. Pretty good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeL_7A-9nXo&feature=player_embedded
Enjoy!
In the meantime, Lily Murkycow is showing her RINO ideology before us. Her votes and comments affect all Americans. And we have to suffer her for six long years.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
No one seems to care about article 2: Aren’t they all important?
I think perhaps “vaunted” instead of “vaulted”
😉
Maybe the incompetence is that they secured one conviction when they were aiming for ZERO.
Redteam, there are conditions that even with a parent being a US citizen can disqualify a candidate for the presidential office. What are those conditions?
And, shouldn’t we look at the ORIGINAL INTENT of this 14th Amendment?
Not that I care about Obama’s birth certificate and I remain unconvinced of the evidence, which includes the short form. What I care about is his childhood education and [foreign] influence.
Now, the ORIGINAL INTENT does mention the foreign influence and what the candidate believes in our own country.
Obama does not seem to believe in our country and our Creator.
The writers of the 14th Amendment must be thinking about Obama’s qualifications or lack therof for the presidential office when they wrote this amendment.
How about the IRS considering any US citizen that lives abroad to be doing so to avoid taxes? Does that violate the presumption of innocence?
Truth be told, the government violates the Bikll of Rights in many ways everyday.
Now, back to the topic at hand which is the 4th admendment.
Given that by far most of the bombs that have have been placed on planes over the last 30 years have been placed their by Muslims would it not be considered probable cause that a Woman in a Burka was possibly carrying a bomb?
“Muslims would it not be considered probable cause that a Woman in a Burka was possibly carrying a bomb?”
I’m not sure that would fit the “probable cause” requirement.
but either everyone is tested, or no one is tested unless there is ‘probable cause’
lurker9876
Redteam, there are conditions that even with a parent being a US citizen
being a ‘natural born citizen’ requires that you have 2 parents that are US citizens.
Neither Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, or, uh, someone else, I can’t remember who, fulfill that requirement.
Here’s a song and video I just created (with my wife) about the whole TSA brou-ha-ha: Grope Me
Lurked
The 14th amend had absolutely nothing to do or say about ‘natural born’ citizens. It was primarily dealing with slaves that were born in the US are citizens
Redteam, Ahrnold?
That was to be Lurker. Excuse the iPhone auto correction
It doesn’t apply to Arnold