Whose side are they on?

This article by Frank Gaffney should make every American stop and ask the same question about the Obama Administration -- Whose side are they on? We would be hard pressed to give an answer because it sure doesn't seem like the Obama Administration has the best interest of the United States at heart when Obama personally goes around the world apologizing for America.

We thought his apology tour and bowing was bad but none hold a candle to what is going on right in our own Country. Islamic Army Major Husan, who by all accounts was unfit to be in the US Army because of his extremist political views favoring Islamist Jihadist, is now being tried for murder not terrorism according to reports. If there ever was an act of terrorism this was it but Obama refuses to acknowledge. Why?

Then we have the mastermind of 9/11 and his co-horts coming to NYC to be tried in Federal Court instead of a military tribunal. Today Germany balked at providing any evidence to the trial of KSM if the death penalty is on the table. Can the case be made without German evidence admitted? Time will tell but we think this is too big of risk to endanger the conviction of KSM and cohorts by moving it to Federal Court. Makes no sense unless you want the terrorist to escape the death penalty or even be set free.

Whose side are they on?
Center for Security Policy Nov 23, 2009
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

An unsettling question has begun to nag as Team Obama's conduct of security policy becomes ever more inconsistent with common sense - and, at least in some cases, manifestly at odds with our national interests: Whose side are they on?
Consider the following illustrative examples of such troubling behavior:

The Obama administration has done everything possible to obscure the true nature of the jihadist attack perpetrated at Fort Hood, Texas earlier this month. Unfortunately, it may not be merely complicating the prosecution of the alleged perpetrator, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. For instance, terrorism expert Steve Emerson has warned that, by charging Hasan only with murder rather than terrorist acts, the Justice Department is denying investigators tools available to law enforcement under the counter-terrorism Patriot Act.

Worse yet, by denying the role played in this attack by Hasan's adherence to the seditious, jihadist program authoritative Islam calls "Shariah," the administration can only compound the problem that has been illuminated by the investigation to date: The collective refusal of the Army, the intelligence services, the FBI and the U.S. government more generally to act against an individual with such proclivities.

This refusal goes beyond "political correctness." It reflects more than an understandable reluctance to risk the retribution to careers and livelihoods associated with being labeled "racists," "bigots" and "Islamophobes." It amounts, as a practical matter, to submission to the dictates of Shariah. And Americans are understandably horrified by the extent to which this practice has been -and is - affecting the capacities of those responsible for keeping us safe.

Then, there is the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder, putatively taken without input from President Obama, to subject New York City to a trial in civilian court of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other Gitmo detainees believed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Holder's truly pathetic - to say nothing of unpersuasive - appearance before Senate Judiciary Committee last week made clear that this trial has no real upsides for the United States, and plenty of downsides.
The latter include: the prospect of new terrorist attacks in Manhattan (Sen. Chuck Schumer says he wants the feds to provide an additional $75 million to protect the city); the certainty that the defendants will use the "platform" they would be afforded as a vehicle for waging political warfare against this country; and the distinct possibility that the constitutional rights they will undeservedly obtain in such a trial will prompt a federal judge to let them off the hook, or at least seriously compromise sensitive intelligence sources, methods and data.

The President is signaling by his indecision (and by the leaks coming out of his administration regarding his interminable deliberations) that he is now more interested in figuring out how to get out of Afghanistan than how to win the struggle there. Our enemies have understood the sea-change that has occurred in this erstwhile "necessary war" and are redoubling their efforts to defeat us. Meanwhile, ordinary Afghans are, quite sensibly, anticipating a Taliban victory and hoping to obtain a tolerable separate peace.

At the same time, al Qaeda is striving to reassert itself in Iraq, exploiting the vacuums of power created by the precipitous withdrawal of American forces from cities and the reopening of smuggling routes from Syria. President Obama's studied indifference towards the situation there and his determination, come what may, to pull all U.S. forces out is setting the stage for a portentous American rout.

Excerpt: Read More at Center for Security Policy