Dear Attorney General Holder: Go &*$# yourself

The Obama administration is holding a "round table" discussion on their policy of prosecuting jihadists in our court system, rather than treating them as prisoners of war. It would seem to me that Obama's mind is pretty well made up on the subject. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Andrew McCarthy, who helped prosecute the terrorists behind the first WTC bombings, was invited to participate in this discussion. He declined, sending the Attorney General an open letter. You can find the entire text of the letter here. It's a bit long but worth reading. Here's some highlights:

"This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop." (emphasis added)

Note the ridiculous title now given to those who take up arms against our nation. Enemy combatants no longer. It seems the more words you throw at something, the more harmless it becomes. He also tears away the illusion of cooperation, and calls their game boldly, but respectfully.

"Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government."

Wait, hold on. Deciding to prosecute people for making good faith judgements on policy, after we decide we don't like their policy, might make other people in similar positions less likely to cooperate? Poppycock!

"[I am] powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade."

He pulls no punches, calling this act out for what it is: a worthless lie. Somehow they think that if you bring people to a meeting, then ignore everything they say, you have somehow been bipartisan. This is not so.

Don't get me wrong. If I were in charge, and my political opponents were powerless to stop me, you better believe I would use the opportunity to enact measures I believed to be in the best interest of our nation. Demolishing spending, cutting taxes (especially on the rich), strengthening the military, reducing government...I'd do what I could to usher in the Conservative golden age. I would respectfully listen to my opponents, but in the end, I would do what I thought was best. What I wouldn't do, and where the left is messing up in my eyes, is try to pretend like I'm not the one making these decisions. I (and all my capitalist friends) would get all the credit for how things went, good or bad.

Look at it this way. The liberals now have complete control of two out of three branches of government, and the third isn't exactly arrayed against them. They ought to be able to do all the things they've wanted to for the last 8 years and longer without any real interference from the conservatives (this is aided by the fact that many Republicans are not conservatives at all). If they were really sure that their policies would work and make a more prosperous nation, if they really believed what they say, they wouldn't want our help. That way, when everything goes rainbows and lollipops, they get all the glory and their opponents are marginalized. They win, America prospers, and they remain in power for a very long time.

Why don't they do this? Because if they do that, when things don't go rainbows and lollipops, they can't blame conservatives for it. So they play this game of bipartisanship, where they pretend they give a rat's behind what the other side thinks by including them in meaningless meetings where they are instantly ignored. That way, should the country take a nose dive, they can cry out that "They weren't the only ones!"

Major kudos to Mr. McCarthy for calling the facade what it is, and giving AG Holder the one fingered salute, in the most kind and respectful way possible.