Monday, November 23, 2009

Holder's Horrible Decision - David Beamer Video LInk Added!

Mr. David Beamer, the father of one of the 9/11/01 Terrorist attack heros Todd Beamer, just appeared on Fox News and gave one of the best speeches I have ever heard to rebut and rebuke Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in New York!

I am waiting for the site to put up the video. You have GOT TO VIEW IT!



Transcript of Video:

Shannon: "A father for one of the 9/11, excuse me, - a lawyer for one of the 9/11 suspects who will be tried here in New York is saying the defendants admit their roles in a plot but they still plan to plead "not guilty" so they can use the courtroom as a platform to criticize the U.S.

This is part of a worst case scenario envisioned by the father of 9/11 hero Todd Beamer. Todd Beamer led a passenger revolt against terrorists aboard United Flight 93 which then crashed in Pennsylvania short of its presumed target. Now Todd's father David is questioning Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the 9/11 suspects in civilian courts. Running a Wall Street Journal Op Ed in which he called it "September 11th the sequel." He joins us now, sir thank you so much for joining us today.

Mr. Beamer: Good morning Shannon.

Shannon: I understanding you were in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week where the attorney general was questioned quite a bit about this decision. What did you take away from that day?"

Mr. Beamer: "Well Shannon, it's really great to be with you this morning and I wanna say it first Happy Thanksgiving to everyone and to remind everyone that we still have a Happy Thanksgiving because of so many who continue to serve and protect and lead and provide intelligence that is; there's been more than eight years now since September let's continue to thank and pray for all those were are doing that. I also want to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the family members of Fort Hood. The most recent people who've been impacted by radical ideals.

I had the opportunity last Wednesday to attend the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Mr. Attorney General Eric Holder where he was to describe his decision. It's a fact of matter that most Americans weren't able to be there that day because they were either working or unfortunately, so many of them were looking for work. But you really had to see and hear it with your own eyes to believe what is happening. I had my eyes and ears open and great concerns coming out of that session.

It was really showing our political system. And when you get to a point where instead of not only a majority party, you have a ruling party across our Congress Legislature and in the White House what can really happen. The decision that the attorney general has made to try the terrorists in civilian court as opposed to military, I believe is a violation of the oath that he took, I believe that the violation of the oath that the commander in chief took, when they said that they were duty bound to defend our country and uphold our Constitution. At the heart of the matter the decision flies in the face of both of those things.

It's. It's to me unimaginable that the risk attendant to a civil trial versus a military trial are so casually taken on the part of the attorney general. To convey rights under our Constitution to enemy combatants, to people sworn to kill us, to people that have confessed their crime is beyond unreasonable. When you think about the potential consequences we're taking risks with this decision that are unnecessary. These evil people pleaded guilty already, they acknowledge their crimes, they asked to be executed in the military proceedings. We should quickly grant their wish.

Instead, the attorney general has taken a different approach for reasons that I can only surmise really have to do with, "Let's prove to the world - let's show to the world that indeed, some of America's practices and procedures and harsh interrogation - let's see if we can't get them convicted even by dismissing any and all evidence obtained under that rationale."

When I called this the September 11th, the sequel, if you consider the impact on New York, the impact on our country, the risks associated with this decision both near term and long term; it is September 11th revisited.

I've heard that - you know - that the attorney general and maintained that "we'll make sure that no classified information comes out due to devulge further our intelligence procedures and systems. We'll make sure they don't have a platform to air their grievances."

We've seen already today that lawyers for Ali Ali and the lawyer for K.F. Mohammed have already decided "we have a new avenue, a new platform, we get to go back to New York."

We consider the impact on not only all the families who lost their loved ones. (By the way Todd Beamer would have been 41 years old tomorrow.) Not only the impact upon the families -- but the impact upon our economy - they attacked the center of commerce; consider the disruption associated in Manhattan with this sort of show trial. It's been said that preliminary costs is only 75 million for extra security we all know that that's a very very low number. But we know that sure one of the quickest affirmative answers that attorney general offered up was "not to worry Senator Schumer, the federal government will put some more money and send it to New York in effect what I would call -- a blank check."

Haven't even considered what might an enemy do given this kind of a platform and that place. How about, how about just one of the sympathizers coming across the Brooklyn Bridge with a shoe bomb. So good people of New York think about your morning commute, taking off all of your shoes on the train and in the plane and there your car is coming across the bridge...this is horrible to give these kind of enemies such a platform. I was further most dismayed with the dynamics of the Judiciary Committee. And to my fellow Americans I would say the dynamics go like this. The ruling party the Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would praise Attorney General Holder for the decision. Then, a member of the minority party, a Republican, would ask a serious question about the decision. All too often, the answers to those questions were "I never imagined that," "I'm not an expert." But people, that does not give us great confidence in considering the impact of this decision.

To convey Constitutional rights on enemy combatants what does that mean for subsequent enemies? What does that say about how are soldiers are supposed to treat enemies captured on the battlefield? Should they be read the Miranda rights? Do they have the right to remain silent? Do we need to export lawyers? Good people, the only answers to these serious questions put to rest about the matter and it came from the minority party. His answers were woefully inadequate. I believe, I believe it's your responsibility for the Attorney General to understand the impact of this left-minded decision to ask his boss, the commander in chief, "Can't I please change this course of action and put it back in the military's hands?"

I'm certain that the administration would be able to come up with appropriate spin for this proper decision and how to set about doing it.

Shannon: Mr. Beamer...

Mr. Beamer, The other thing that I observed..."Yes?

Shannon: ... I'm sorry I'll let you wrap this up...

Mr. Beamer: I have now adopted a mantra of "hope and change" but to me that's spelled 2010 and 2012. I call upon my fellow Americans let's put the house back in order. And I thank you very much Shannon for the opportunity to share with all of you, and let's try to have an even happier Thanksgiving in November, 2010 because of a regime change.

Shannon: Mr. Beamer, thank you so much for your time today I would not be surprised if someone tries to tap you on the 2010 or 2012 ballot. You make excellent points -- we thank you for sharing your time with us we hope that you will come back as we follow. These -- and the decisions as they play out and a very happy Thanksgiving to you when your family and as you recognize Todd's birthday as well. We thank you so much for his sacrifice. And to all the other families who suffered a loss because of 9/11.

Mr. Beamer: Thank you Shannon.

*******End of Transcript*******

We need people like Mr. David Beamer in Congress in 2010!!!

Until I find the new video, here is an earlier video of David Beamer speaking about United Flight 93.


Nice Deb: Confirmed: NYC Show Trial Will Be Platform For Terrorist Propaganda


The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”

Fox News article:

9/11 Suspects to Plead No Guilty, Seek Show Trial


Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthourse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.


There is no doubt in my mind anymore that ObamaFRAUD and that traitor Holder are doing this for a specific purpose. They want to try the former Bush Administration and their foreign policy decisions. This is so outrageous and sickening...


Fox News: Charles "Cully" Stimson - 4 Reasons Holder Failed to Convince Me on Terror Trials


Eric Holder's stumbling performance before Congress on Wednesday exposed the administration’s scattershot approach to detention and prosecution of terrorists.

In his recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder had the opportunity to outline clearly the Obama administration’s approach to the vexing legal issues surrounding the war against terrorists. More importantly, he had the chance to explain his decision to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists to New York for a civilian trial in federal court. A distinguished prosecutor, Holder needed to put to rest the many legitimate concerns that have arisen lately about the administration’s approach to terrorism, and rebut each one with ready facts and irrefutable logic.

His performance was, to be blunt, a failure.

Indeed, his stumbling performance exposed the administration’s scattershot approach to detention and prosecution of terrorists.

Holder made four basic arguments for his decision to send KSM and others to federal court. In each instance, however, when pressed for the strategic reasons for doing so, the attorney general dropped the ball. In a few instances, the AG literally stuttered and did not even have an answer to the easy, predictable questions.

Continue reading here.


Maggies Notebook has a post up with some of Mr. Beamer's comments. A good read!

No comments: