By Manuel Rodriguez
In light of the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder (and President Obama) to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in New York City, it is interesting to note how Holder and Obama have dealt with terrorists in the past.
In his book Catastrophe, Dick Morris writes:
Holder was instrumental in persuading President Clinton to pardon a group of FALN terrorists in 2000…What makes the whole episode even more reprehensible is that the terrorists had not even applied for pardons…The sixteen FALN members pardoned at Holder’s urging had been convicted of bank robbery, possession of explosives, and participating in a seditious conspiracy.
This clearly shows that Attorney General Eric Holder is terrorist friendly. What about President Obama? In his first few weeks as president, Obama freed Binyam Mohammed from Guantanamo with no charges. Binyam had met with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whom sent him on missions to detonate a dirty bomb and to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in an American city. This terrorist’s lawyers alleged that he had been tortured while in U.S. custody. So Obama let him go. Outrageous!
Why would Obama and Holder want to pardon and release terrorists whom want to hurt innocent Americans and inevitably will keep on trying to do so? Apparently they believe that constitutional rights should be applied everywhere and to everyone, regardless of the risks to our national security. Obama wants terrorists to enjoy constitutional freedoms.
Dick Morris notes:
Obama believes that the Constitution applies equally to the prosecution of criminal defendants and to the gathering of intelligence. He believes you have to get your information in ways that won’t prevent it from being introduced as evidence in a criminal trial.
It seems to me, based on this evidence, that Obama and Holder may actually want to allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to be acquitted and blame the Bush administration for it, even if that will seriously put America in danger.
What do you think?
