The Enemy Within
by Paul R. Hollrah
On Friday, November 13, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that the
mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four co-conspirators
would be brought from Guantanamo Bay to New York to be tried for their crimes…
the trial to be held just blocks from where ten Muslim jihadists murdered some
3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.
Five days later, in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Attorney General Eric Holder conceded that Mohammed and the other terrorists
could have been taken before a military tribunal.
However, he argued that the Obama Administration favored criminal trials
because to do so would “restore the
integrity of our judicial system.”
He went on to assure the Committee that the trials would be quick, that
the safety of New Yorkers would be a top priority, that no classified
information would be revealed, and that the defendants
would be found guilty.
Then, in a January 31 appearance on CNN’s
State of the Union, Obama’s sock puppet,
Robert Gibbs said… with full awareness that KSM was to be tried in criminal
court… “Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to
meet his maker… He will be brought to
justice and he is likely to be executed
for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing – in masterminding the
killing of 3,000 Americans.
That you can be sure of.”
It
boggles the mind. What they are
telling us is that: a) they have made the decision to try Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed
in criminal court where there is a
presumption of innocence, b) that he will receive a
quick and fair trial, c) that the
evidence in the case is overwhelming,
d) that the U.S. Attorney will refuse to
allow full discovery by the defense, e) that Mohammed is
certain to be found guilty, f) that
if by some quirk of the justice system he is found not guilty
he will not be released, and g) no
matter what the jury’s verdict... they
plan to kill him anyway.
These statements come, not from the most ignorant laymen on the street, but from
a man who claims to have been a Harvard-educated “constitutional law professor”
and the Attorney General of the United States, the two highest law enforcement
officials in the land. These men
cannot be nearly as stupid as they would appear.
The American people were outraged.
Then, on Christmas Day, a young Nigerian jihadist, Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab,
attempted to detonate a chemical bomb
aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253, bound for Detroit.
Although seriously burned, the bomber was restrained by other passengers
and turned over to the FBI. However,
after only 50 minutes of interrogation, during which time FBI interrogators
claim to have obtained all the information they could get from him, the
terrorist was “Mirandized.” He
requested a lawyer and he stopped talking.
Once again, the American people were outraged.
Columnist Byron York asked, “… Who made the decision to charge
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab… as an everyday criminal, as opposed to an enemy
combatant? After all, Abdulmutallab
was trained by al Qaeda, equipped with an al Qaeda bomb, and dispatched by al
Qaeda to bring down the airliner and its 278 passengers… So who decided to treat
Abdulmutallab as a civilian, read him the Miranda warning, and provide him with
a government-paid lawyer – giving him the right to remain silent and (losing)
the potentially valuable intelligence that might have been gained by a
military-style interrogation?”
After just twelve months of the Obama Administration, the American people demand
to know who it is that makes such outrageous decisions.
If Obama denies having made these decisions and his Attorney General
refuses to answer question from Republicans and the media, where does that leave
us? A
May 2007 article for the
New Media Journal
by Managing Editor Frank Salvato provides a brief introduction to some of the
major players in the Department of Justice.
To understand who these people are and the role
they play in the “administration of justice,” it might be instructive to look at
some of the key players in the case of Sandy Berger,
former National Security Advisor in the Clinton
Administration.
In October 2003, Berger was preparing for his
testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
During four separate visits to the National Archives, Berger removed and
then destroyed unique and classified documents pertaining to the Clinton
Administration’s knowledge of terrorist threats to the United States.
Berger not only removed unique top
secret documents in his briefcase and in his socks, he secreted additional
documents at a nearby construction site for later retrieval.
But Berger was not worried about being prosecuted
for his crimes. As Salvato tells
us, he had friends in high places in the Justice Department, men such as Bruce
Swartz, John Dion, Howard Sklamberg, and
Glenn Fine, to name just a few. So
who are these men?
▪ Bruce Swartz is a former Deputy Assistant
Attorney General and head of the Criminal Division.
His primary claim to fame is that he was the most senior Justice
Department lawyer named in the decision to keep the 9/11 Commission in the dark
regarding Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents from the National
Archives. Throughout the time that
Berger sat before the Commission, Swartz continued to block any DOJ report on
his criminal activity. He currently
serves as Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Eric Holder.
▪ John Dion currently serves in the Criminal
Division of the Department of Justice and is a former Chief of the
Counterespionage Section. It was
Dion who initiated the investigation into the Valerie Plame affair, resulting in
the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis
“Scooter” Libby. Libby’s crime was
that he could not remember with absolute certainty every word of every
conversation he’d had with a journalist years earlier.
Dion also collaborated with Bruce Swartz on efforts to keep word of Sandy
Berger’s theft of classified National Archives documents from the 9/11
Commission.
▪ Howard Sklamberg currently serves as
Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney's Fraud and Public Corruption Section in the
DC Circuit. He formerly
served as a trial attorney in the Department of
Justice Public Integrity Section.
It was Sklamberg who was assigned to inform the Inspector General of the
National Archives, Paul Brachfeld, that the DOJ would not inform the 9/11
Commission that Sandy Berger had stolen classified documents from the National
Archives.
▪ Glenn A. Fine serves as Inspector General of the Department of Justice, charged with finding and prosecuting wrongdoing in the DOJ. However, on April 9, 2004, in Fine’s presence, Bruce Swartz insisted to Paul Brachfeld, the National Archives Inspector General, that Berger had been supervised “at all times” while reviewing Clinton Administration documents at the Archives… a statement proven to be an outright lie by the senior National Archives official charged with Berger's supervision.
So what is it that all of these men have in
common… other than their participation in the Berger coverup ?
These men are all holdovers from the Bush Administration, but it wasn’t
George W. Bush who brought them into the Justice Department.
They were all appointed during the Clinton Administration and held over
through eight years of Bush’s presidency.
Like his father, George W. Bush was so inept,
politically, that he had eight years to purge the Justice Department of hundreds
of such left wing cockroaches, or make them wish they were working elsewhere,
but he simply wasn’t tough enough, or partisan enough, to get the job done.
It was no secret that all of these men were maximum contributors to the
Democratic National Committee, and, as such, they could not be trusted with the
administration of justice.
As Salvato warns, “The implications of a political
and partisan USDJ are disturbing and lay the groundwork for the demise of our
Constitutional government, a government of laws such as it is.
That American justice would be
administered politically on such a transparently partisan scale lends itself to
an image of a nation where political corruption is accepted and political
persecution is tolerated, which side benefiting from both being decided by the
spoils of a successful political campaign and the patronage that includes.”
Adolph Hitler understood the value of a
politicized justice system. To
increase
the “political reliability” of the courts, Hitler established the
Volksgerichtshof (People's Court) to
try a wide variety of politically sensitive cases.
It was not unlike the justice system that Democrats have worked so hard
to establish in the United States… a justice system featuring one set of
standards for Republicans and an entirely different set of standards for
Democrats.
Remember, Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys when
he came into office. Perhaps we can now
understand why Democrats were so incensed when George W. Bush fired only eight.
As Salvato concludes, “It is apparent to anyone taking an honest look at the current situation of the (Department of Justice) that during the eight years of the Clinton Administration, the Clinton White House loaded the United States Justice Department with enough upper and mid-level political appointments and promotions to circumvent any investigation and/or prosecution of crimes originating and perpetrated at the hands of (Democrats and Democratic appointees.)
“It is equally apparent that the Clinton White House intentionally placed these people in positions where they could inflict the most political damage on the opposition party by simply investigating until either a crime was discovered or created, or there was enough dirt run through the Clinton-friendly mainstream media to destroy the subject's credibility and ability to be effective.”
Under Barack Obama, the corruption in the Department of Justice has been exacerbated by injecting it with a strong dose of Chicago-style Democrat thuggery. What appears normal and acceptable to the likes of Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and Rahm Emanuel, looks like the worst sort of political corruption to the vast majority of Americans. The voters will make them pay a heavy price in the coming elections. To quote Robert Gibbs, “That you can be sure of.”
150 Walnut Street
Locust Grove, OK 74352