On the 9/11 Trial—11/17/2009
Today, I wish to comment on the Obama regime’s decision to hold a federal civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a member of Al-Qaeda and mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks against New York City, the Pentagon, and Washington D.C.
The decision to hold a trial within the United States for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is, first of all, an outrage in the strongest definition of the word. This monster is not a U.S. citizen, and yet the federal government wishes to try him here simply because he committed a crime here. This is nothing more than an act of stupidity and cowardice on the part of the tyrannical Obama regime, Obama himself being sympathetic to the enemy. The U.S. Constitution does not offer sanctuary to those who seek to destroy it and the United States, and the fact that Mohammed’s trial is being held in America is not only a threat to the safety and security of Americans, but is also an utter insult to America—a middle finger from Obama, especially towards New York City and the victims of 9/11. Not being an American citizen himself, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not guaranteed protection or rights under the legal system of the United States, so there is no reason whatsoever for him to be tried here, other than for Obama’s pathetic effort to save face and further his malign anti-American/appeasement agenda by supposedly trying to be the moral big man in the face of the useless United Nations and other inept international “peacekeeping” organizations which serve no purpose other than to worsen and destabilize the very same situations they were meant to defuse before the situations boil out of control. To be sure, holding a trial for Mohammed on American soil under the American legal system is a powder keg just waiting to be lit and detonated, both politically and militarily speaking. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, like all Al-Qaeda members, is a man of utmost unrestrained violence who can never be peacefully negotiated with nor rehabilitated psychologically, and his escape from the trial would be all the opportunity he needs to easily meet up with Al-Qaeda sleeper cells within the United States and take command of them to carry out further major terrorist attacks, God forbid ones on the scale or close to the scale of 9/11, hence the military threat; if the trial were to result in a hung jury or Mohammed be found innocent—which would not surprise me one bit, considering the other sad states of affairs in this country—the political implications could be disastrous and worsen the already serious turmoil going on in the United States regarding terrorism and the dealings of the George W. Bush Administration regarding terrorism, as well as possibly lead to riots in New York City and/or other parts of the country.
To elaborate on other grievances in this recent legal affair:
• The Citizenship of the Enemy: Whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is an American citizen, or in fact any of the other Al-Qaeda terrorists about to be prosecuted are American citizens, should be the sole determining factor in whether or not he should be tried in the United States; regardless of whether or not the crime of terrorism took place here is irrelevant. As said, those who are not citizens of the United States are not guaranteed legal protection under the American legal system. And as I said earlier, the U.S. Constitution does not offer sanctuary to those who seek to destroy it and the United States. If the other Al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9/11 actually are American citizens, then this is a different story and they do indeed have the right to be tried in the United States with a trial by a jury of their peers, etc… Mohammed himself should be tried elsewhere, preferably in a formally neutral country—Geneva, Switzerland being the best place for his tribunal. As for the other Al-Qaeda terrorists implicated in the 9/11 attacks, assuming they are U.S. citizens, their charges are insufficient and should be broadened significantly. “Terrorism” is not a sufficient charge for the 9/11 attackers and was not their sole offense, as “terrorism” is more of a broad term that does not specifically and accurately express the type and nature of the offenses these monsters are responsible for. The 9/11 attackers’ acts—all of which except for membership in a criminal organization are capital offenses under both American and international law, and the only sufficient punishment being the death penalty--consisted of crimes against humanity (genocide targeting primarily Americans, but Westerners in general regardless of nationality), membership in a criminal organization (Al-Qaeda being the criminal organization in question and membership in a criminal organization being an offense under international law, if my memory serves), and—specifically in the case of the American Al-Qaeda members only—treason (providing aid and comfort to, as well as fraternizing with, the enemy). While, unfortunately, the American Al-Qaeda members, regardless of how horrific the crimes they have committed are compared to run-of-the-mill murderers and serial killers, have the right to be tried in the United States since their citizenship is here, the foreigners are only rightfully prosecuted in a manner similar to the Nazis in the Nuremburg Trials before the entire globe in a neutral location by an international civilian or military tribunal—the type and exact location of which being no concern to me, just so long as it does not take place within my country and as long as the terrorists are properly put to death.
• Troubles with the Geneva Convention and its Farces: The previous administration under the presidency of George W. Bush is criticized for its alleged violation the Geneva Convention by advocating the torture and humiliation of hostile combatants being held captive at the detention camp in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which, all wartime logic considered, is cowardice within itself. The Geneva Convention is nothing more than a laughable farce that was orchestrated by morons who so believed that a universal ethical principle could be forcefully applied to all nations of the world regarding all wars—this being an impossible paradox due to the fact that war is inherently inhumane. The only two laws within the Geneva Convention that are of any logical value are the ones prohibiting the intentional targeting and killing of innocent non-combatant civilians or neutral parties, and that the welfare and security of all non-combatant civilians of the defeated enemy country or conquered territory must be addressed by the military force occupying said defeated enemy country or conquered territory. The suffering of innocents in war is always inevitable, but should be minimized as much as possible; those who take one side or another and actively take up arms have thus joined the war and are at that point no longer innocent and are therefore open game. The enemy does not respect the Geneva Convention, so why should we respect such a worthless and ignorant idea simply because we and our allies are supposed to be the good guys? If the civilized people and nations of the world are so concerned with wartime atrocities, then the people of the world, by this very logic, should take more active steps to elect their politicians more carefully so that their nations can avoid war in the first place and secure more permanent peace—for it is corrupt politicians being the final manifestation of the very worst of human nature and not soldiers themselves that are ultimately the root cause of all violent conflict, especially violent conflict at the scale of outright war. And so when the people themselves fail to preserve peace by placing corrupt politicians in power, they must bear the atrocities and other tragic consequences of the most inhumane and unethical event that is war and realize that nations go to war to win; wars can never be won unless you hit the enemy relentlessly, ruthlessly, savagely, and without mercy. For this reason I submit this to you: If an Al-Qaeda or other terrorist plants a bomb in any major American city or a major city of one of our allies that has the ability to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent non-combatant people in an instant and said terrorist is captured, then do you not have the moral obligation to do literally whatever it takes to force said captured terrorist to reveal the location of his bomb so that his bomb can be disarmed, even if it means resorting to the most sadistic psychological and/or physical torture? The fact of the matter remains that truly the most morally correct thing to do is to intimidate, humiliate, degrade, starve, beat, electrocute, mutilate, and otherwise bring about whatever amount of suffering—even if it leaves permanent scars on the captured terrorist or costs him his life—is necessary in order to save all innocents threatened with grave harm, for the sacrifice of one life is both absolutely insignificant and of dire importance at the same time in order to save the lives of the innocents that were threatened by the very same man whose life was ended by torture or execution. And yet I continue to hear all of this drivel over how horrible the George W. Bush Administration is for resorting to less than pleasant methods such as waterboarding—which was done in order to extract intelligence from dangerous enemies necessary in order to ensure that the people of the United States and of our allies can sleep safely and without fear in their beds at night. All this talk of torture being wrong because it makes us no different than the enemy is utterly foolish and yet true at the same time, for both sides are always at fault—regardless of who provokes the war out of needless aggression and who is actually justified in rising up in arms, as both sides will always commit some sort of atrocity on the battlefield since atrocities against one’s enemies are necessary to win wars. Though I must admit that George W. Bush was a failure as a president and as a commander-in-chief in more ways than one, the extraction methods he used and his willingness to stand up to one of the farces of the Geneva Convention in fact saved innocent lives; the number and value of innocent lives saved can never be calculated by anyone, much less opponents of torture.
The decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on American soil when he is not even truly guaranteed protection by the American justice system in the first place is every bit of an insult to me and all other true Americans as much of the Geneva Convention is a foolish farce. God willing, the prosecution of the 9/11 mastermind will go well; if it fails, God help us.....
