Trading Terrorist Rights For American Lives
January 11, 2010
By J.B. Williams
On Christmas Day 2009, the first of many terror chickens came home to roost when a Nigerian member of Al Qaeda climbed aboard a US commercial flight headed from Amsterdam to Detroit and attempted to set off a chemical bomb mid-flight.
Once again, civilians found themselves in the position of having to provide for their own safety and security as the folks whose primary purpose is to provide for the common defense of the people, came up sorely lacking.
Had it not been for a handful of brave patriots willing to take matters into their own hands, Flight 253 could have ended the futures of everyone on board.
This is what we should expect in a nation that puts its soldiers on trial for taking their oath seriously in the war on terror abroad, while the Obama administration offers known enemy combatants civil rights in criminal courts, by no means designed to handle the complexities of war.
In fact, when the administration sees patriotic American citizens and former military personnel as "potential domestic terrorists" - and known terrorists as mere "criminals," this is the best outcome we can hope for.
Predictably, Obama was quick on the trigger when taking aim at the agencies responsible for securing commercial flights. As Jim Meyers reports at Newsmax, Obama told reporters: "A systemic failure has occurred, and I consider that totally unacceptable."
Referring to the early signals, he said: "Had this critical information been shared, it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags, and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America."
Obama is the "systemic failure." He and his terror-friendly administration, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was engaged in the legal defense on known terrorists before being named the head of the US Justice system by Barack Obama, have great difficulty separating "acts of war" from "criminal behaviors" and terrorists from US soldiers or even average American citizens for that matter.
As Meyers points out in his Newsmax report based upon a story in the liberal New York Times, "two federal officials told the paper that U.S. intelligence was aware that a Nigerian Muslim was preparing an attack, yet officials did nothing to give warning of such an attack."
The paper reported Wednesday: "Two officials said the government had intelligence from Yemen before Friday that leaders of a branch of Al Qaeda were talking about 'a Nigerian' being prepared for a terrorist attack." "But despite those signals, the administration never raised a terror alert, and would-be bomber Abdulmutallab was allowed to board a plane bound for the United States."
I wonder why an administration that sees average citizens as "potential terrorists" and actual terrorists as "common criminals" would hesitate to warn the people of the impending danger that lurks within a nation not at all serious about an enemy just as committed to death and destruction today as they were on September 11, 2001.
We are talking about the same folks who still refuse to admit that our nation is at war with extreme Islam around the globe that we have numerous terror training facilities right here on American soil or that the Jihadist in Ft. Hood was in fact an Al Qaeda operative in regular contact with known Al Qaeda cells in Yemen, up until he shouted "Allahu Akbar" before killing a dozen unarmed soldiers at Ft. Hood.
Despite the fact that Americans in part, elected Obama on the false belief that Bush and Cheney made America "less safe" by their semi-aggressive "war on terror," the Washington Times now reports that 85% of Americans now expect terrorist attacks to be successful on American soil in 2010. That's a cheerful thought full of "hope" for the New Year, isn't it? For a "change," I agree with 85% of Americans.
Still, one is compelled to ask why those responsible for making certain that someone like Abdulmutallab is unable to climb aboard a US commercial flight, chose not to do so? This is the real point, isn't it? Someone "in-the-know" chose not to share that information with people who could have and allegedly would have stopped Abdulmutallab from climbing aboard Flight 253. It was not an "intelligence failure" like 9/11/01. The terrorist's own father reported his son MIA after making direct threats against the West.
He reported it to the US Embassy in Yemen , and there was plenty of time to react, had that information been shared with the appropriate agencies. Why wasn't it?
While we're at it, why is our federal government treating American soldiers like "enemy combatants" in military courts while offering civilians criminal courts and US Civil Rights to known enemy combatants captured on the battle field?
And here's the biggest question of all Why aren't American citizens demanding answers to these and many more obvious questions?
As Democrat John F. Kennedy said so well "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
In October of 2008, I wrote a column titled Terrorists, Terrorism and Obama and nobody listened. Voters had been convinced by the leftist lame stream press that even a nobody with life-long ties to terrorists, communists and third world thugs, would be "better than Bush." If you still don't know who and what we elected, there may be no hope for you or the future of this once free and prosperous nation.
At the end of the day, you can't win a war by refusing to acknowledge its existence. You can't defeat extreme Islam by aiding and abetting Jihadists, and you can't end the war on terror by refusing to fight the war on terror. You can only get more innocent people killed with such policies.
This is what we can look forward to in 2010. Eighty-five percent of Americans know it and thanks to the 15% who don't, all Americans will pay a heavy price for the decision of the 52% who put these folks in unbridled power.