Holder's Baffling KSM Decision

[dgriffin]

The Wall Street Journal


Eric Holder's Baffling KSM Decision


The attorney general's Senate testimony this week did nothing to reassure the families of 9/11's victims.

By DAVID BEAMER

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Attorney General Eric Holder about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. As the father of Todd Beamer, who died on United Airlines Flight 93, I was able to attend that hearing. What transpired caused me great concern and shook my confidence in our current administration.

The committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), displayed the division in our country not only visually—the Democrats were seated on the left and the Republicans on the right—but in every aspect of the proceedings. I expected that some members would agree with Mr. Holder and that others would have challenging questions about his decision. What I did not anticipate was the level of partisanship showed by the majority party. It seemed clear to me and other family members of victims that party loyalty is trumping concern for America's security interests.

During the proceedings a young lady, dutifully attentive, sat with a stack of paper about 15 inches high on her lap. The papers contained names, single spaced, of some 100,000 people who signed a letter in opposition to this decision. This young woman, Jill Regan, lost her dad, Donald J. Regan, FDNY of the Bronx, who died trying to save others on 9/11. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Al.) asked that those names be entered into the record at the end of the session. It was agreed, but by that time the chairmen and most of the Democrats were already gone. I grieved for her—and for all of us—anew.

MORE AT:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547681569546414.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Clipper]

It worries me daily that we are witnessing a partisan battle that only pits one party against anything that the other proposes, rather than for either party to focus on finding common ground in the interest of protecting the country.

While both parties are guilty of playing the game, it is the democrats that have built the wall in the middle of the aisle and the president that refuses to budge on any of his personal interests.

It is sad and scary to watch the way our system is dividing us rather than uniting us as fellow Americans. Party loyalty does not include a pledge to vote against the will of the people that put you in office.

It is the job of congress to make the desires of the voter and the American public come to fruition, not the desires of those that will gain personally from some politically motivated scheme or power play.

[dgriffin]

It's hard to argue with your view, Clipper. But it is true we've struggled along as a country with worse politicians. Early in our republic, some of the shenanigans were quite awful. It did seem, however that even earlier in this century when the chips were down, our elected representatives could put aside their squabbles and get down to business. On the other hand, it's true that any society will no doubt eventually crumble and fall to pieces. Every one before us has.

The Senate as a whole impresses me much more than the House. Maybe it's their longer terms of office. Quite often, the compromised, committee-drawn circus plans of the House get straightened out or killed in the Senate. Many are predicting the latter will happen with the health care debacle. The Democrats won't like that. Such a loss will not bode well for Obama, and his bad fortune will translate into Democrat losses in the next congressional elections. I think at this point that is the only game being played ... health care reform has evidently gone off the table.