Would it be improper, or at least appear improper, to ship a high-profile terrorist mastermind to New York City to be tried in a civilian court when you used to be a senior partner at a law firm that goes out of its way to defend terrorists? What if you used to make a lot of money doing so?

What if that same company gave you a $5 million bonus as you left it to take on a new job as Attorney General of the United States? Would that strike you as possibly being a conflict of interest? Would an extensive personal history of defending terrorists and endorsing the Presidential pardons of convicted terrorists seem to reinforce the idea that you might have some kind of soft spot for the worst people on Earth? Or not?

Will criticizing the corrupt sleazeball who serves as Attorney General put the author of this blog post on some kind of FBI watch list? I’ve got to know.

And the Failbus rolls on…

BEIJING — President Obama directly acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay will not close by the January deadline he set, but he said he hoped to still achieve that goal sometime next year.

Obama refused, however, to set a new deadline.

This was a cornerstone of his entire claim to the presidency. Understandably, by the time he got elected and the grown-ups started thinking about the issue, his plans didn’t actually work out.

He’s failed to lead on any of his signature issues. You’ve all been Hope-a-Doped again.

I have some questions. Anyone is free to answer.

Last week, the Obama administration, specifically Attorney General Eric Holder, announced that several terrorists including the guy behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, will be brought from Guantanamo to New York City to face trial in a civilian court, with a civilian judge, with a civilian jury, about 6 blocks away from the former site of the towers.

My questions:

1. These terrorists were capture on the battlefield by uniformed soldiers, not law enforcement folks. They were not read their rights. Why won’t they or their lawyers be able to ask for the charges to be dismissed because of this?

2. The President has called what these men experienced in Guantanamo "torture." Why won’t they or their lawyers be able to claim that any confessions of guilt were obtained under threat of further torture, and therefore should be dismissed by the judge?

3. These terrorists did not have access to legal counsel during their interrogations. Why can’t they or their lawyers claim that their rights have been violated and thus request that the charges be dismissed?

4. In their defense, these men or their lawyers will presumably be given access to the same confidential or classified information that the prosecution will use to make their case. What will be done to protect this classified information from being publically released or leaked by participants in the trial?

5. Given the public outcry against the supposedly illegal treatment of these terrorists by the public, what’s the possibility that a jury could acquit them outright and set them loose on American soil?

6. What’s to prevent these men from representing themselves in court, giving themselves a spotlight to gloat over the success of the attacks and rage against the Great Satan in the most public forum possible, while gaining access to our country’s national security information and infrastructure?

7. Please refute the following conclusion:

Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history.

8. Please refute the following conclusion:

By transferring this case to civilian court rather than leaving it to be handled by the military-commission system created by Congress, Obama and Holder have needlessly created a perilous dilemma. Do we deny KSM & Co. the right to represent themselves and thus risk reversal of any convictions on Sixth Amendment grounds? Do we grant them self-representation but withhold critical discovery and thus risk reversal on due process grounds? Or do we grant them self-representation and disclose directly to our wartime enemies the nation’s security secrets, which they can then pass on to confederates who are actively targeting us for mass-murder attacks?

This stuff, more than anything else Barack Obama has done, tells me that he doesn’t have the country’s best interests at heart. Closing Guantanamo was supposed to make us safer, but the alternative that the administration has come up with is appalling. The idea that we give these guys a voice in a civilian court is stupid and evil. Expecting to convict them under American civilian law when no constitutional due process has been extended to them up until now is stupid and evil. Giving access to our intelligence services to people who want to destroy us is stupid and evil. Attempting to use the American courts to embarrass the previous administration for their honest attempts to defend the country against this scum is stupid and evil.

When reality sets in and we see what this decision unleashes, this stuff, more than anything else, might be the undoing of Barack Obama.

These are all Drudge headlines.

Arabs, China, Russia and France plan to dump dollar for oil trading

Obama renews health-care push

Obama’s pissed at his Afghanistan General for talking about Afghanistan

Mayor of New York declares that “We can’t just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want.” — without being monitored by surveillance cameras…

These ones all just made little hairs on my neck stand up. First of all, Every country that matters in the world is about to stop trading oil in US dollars. The dollar is about to tank again. Why would these countries make such a profound change? Because the US government and Federal Reserve have shaken the confidence of the ability of America to maintain its debt level without inflating the currency.

Why would they lack confidence in our ability to control spending? Well, how about spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have on universal health care? That’s link #2.

Why would they question the political leadership of the United States? How about because Barack Obama has shown that he has no international clout, and his Generals are apparently taking their concerns directly to the people instead of “advising” the president behind closed doors? Obama has an inability to make a decision on what to do in Afghanistan, and it’s costing him.

And finally, the mayor of the most important city in the world has decided that people shouldn’t just be allowed to go wherever they want and do whatever they do without being monitored by their government.

This is just TODAY. What does this stuff mean? It means freedom is being stripped from us. It means our personal property and reward for our labor is being devalued. It means that the country’s legacy of prosperity is being squandered, that our economy is being dismantled, that our influence in the world is in decline. And it’s all 100% the fault of the people who have “governed” us for the last 50 years and longer. Our economic stability has been sold to the Chinese and Japanese. Our freedom is being curtailed for our own “good.” And the top priority of the man who serves as president is to increase our indebtedness and decrease the control we have over our own lives.

Load up on guns, bitter clingers. The shit’s gonna hit the fan at some point.

I’m not a truther. I don’t want to be a truther. I want things to be simple and easily explainable and for things to be exactly as they seem. But if anybody in the government cares, stuff like this is why truthers exist (emphasis mine):

OKLAHOMA CITY – Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited, an attorney who obtained the recordings said Sunday.
…
The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said.

"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain’t no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.

He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced."

"The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn’t want anybody to see."

Remember, this is an Associated Press story. This is not some nutbag truther website.

Multiple cameras operated by “various” companies all needing their tape replaced at the same time, and then coming back online after the explosion. Mmkay.

The fact that the evidence for tampering is so clear and the excuse so stupid, I can’t help but think that someone on the “inside” is trying to send a message. They’re basically screaming that there’s more here that someone doesn’t want us to know about.

Trentadue said he is seeking more tapes along with a variety of bombing-related documents from the FBI and the CIA. An FOIA request by Trentadue for 26 CIA documents was rejected in June. A letter from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which reviewed the documents, said their release "could cause grave damage to our national security."

OK, so the government’s narrative is that a couple of right-wing militia dudes acted alone to build this truck bomb, and blew it up all on their own. One of these guys has been executed, the other is in prison for the rest of his life. The end.

But if that’s the whole truth, then:

1. Why would the FBI release edited tape?

2. Why would there be “grave” national security implications involved in releasing more documents about it?

3. Why is the CIA involved in what amounts to an internal law enforcement issue, and why are they keeping secrets about it?

I very much want to believe that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone. Life would be a lot less complicated if that was true.