The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Sheer Imbecility

While most of the MSM is obsessing about the underwear bomber, ABC News provides us with a troubling report on another terrorist that the Obama administration insists on treating like an everyday criminal:
New York City projects it will cost more than $400 million to provide security if the pre-trial preparation and trial of the suspects in the Sept. 11 terror attacks [headlined by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] takes two years, which insiders say is virtually certain, according to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The cost of the upcoming terror trials in this New York City courthouse for Guantanamo Bay detainees charged as 9/11 co-conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will likely be more than $400 million and could go as high as $600 million. It will cost another $206 million annually if the trial runs beyond two years, which some fear is possible, the mayor's office estimates.

$400 million dollars for what? Both the President and his Attorney General have all but stated that KSM is guilty, that he will be convicted and imprisoned for life. So why conduct a show trial?

Richard Fernandez (Wretchard) of The Belmont Club tries to answer 'For what?' when he comments:
Well, the ostensible point of this circus is to impress upon the world the law-abiding, civilized and enlightened nature of the current administration. It was supposed to move, inspire and thrill onlookers while it establishes in a very public way that there is no longer a War on Terror. There is only law enforcement.

It is certain that it will impress the world, but not in the way it was designed to. The sheer imbecility, wastefulness and self-destructiveness of this carnival will simply beggar description. It’s possible that even the most rabid anti-American will actually be dumbfounded. At an actual loss for words. The spectacle may unintentionally succeed in deflecting any further attacks from al-Qaeda either because it will paralyze them with either uncontrollable laughter or convince them that the pitiful slobs Americans have become are not even worth striking. So in a way it may all work out.

It may seem harsh to characterize Eric Holder’s decision (and Obama’s acquiescence to that decision) as “sheer imbecility, wastefulness and self-destructiveness,” but in reality, it gives us rather considerable insight into the mindset of the smartest guys in the room.

The President and his administration are convinced that they can manage our country’s image by demonstrating that we live under the rule of law. They seem to forget that we’ve lived under the rule of law for 230-plus years. They seem to believe that public relations can somehow change hearts and minds at the fringes of the Moslem world. That moral preening will influence religious fanatics and make them see that we’re really not so bad after all.

Could the smartest guys in the room really be that naïve? Do they honestly believe that “poverty and hopelessness” or “grievances” are the primary driver that causes people like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the son of a wealthy banker) to attempt to blow up an airplane and murder almost 300 innocent people? Do they think that by avoiding phrases like “terrorist” or “war on terror” they will somehow magically make the threat go away? It can’t be, and yet, it seems as if they believe it.

So the Obama administration is willing to spend hundreds of millions prosecuting a murderous terrorist all in the name of what … exactly?

It's a troubling question that leads one to think of darker motives. A commenter at The Belmont Club suggests:
The only reason that I can see for going through with these trials is to give Islam a very public platform to make its case against the USA and the West. That NYC is the media capital of the world was obviously a reason for this decision. Nothing else makes sense. This is very disturbing.

Still another suggests:
... this administration benefits from a Foley Square circus because it serves as (1) an MSM stimulus skillfully applied at the nation’s media center, and (2) the coverage will mask all other conduct by the administration for months. Transparency nothing, the public won’t be able to see anything important for a year not because it is hidden, but because it will be overwhelmed by flashy distractions.

Generally, I would dismiss these comments as borderline paranoia, but the “sheer imbecility, wastefulness and self-destructiveness” of the administration's decision forces one to consider a darker subtext.

The smartest guys in the room can demonstrate that there is no dark subtext by rescinding their decision. It would be the right thing to do. I won't hold my breath.