Former federal prosecutor and terrorism expert Andrew McCarthy and Patrick Poole at Pajamas Media are writing that the Obama administration and Holder Justice Department are blocking efforts to indict several leaders of Islamic organizations in the US? As a former DOJ employee, I am asking; can this be true?
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11792511&Itemid=0
Below is a follow-up article by Poole in PM that links back to his first article.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-empire-strikes-back/
And now, Congressman Peter King (bless his heart) is asking hard questions.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0411/Peter_King_questions_decision_not_to_prosecute_CAIR_others.html
The complete text of King's letter to Holder is below:
http://homeland.house.gov/letter/king-letter-attorney-general-holder
Let me add some personal perspective here (as if I can make sense out of the Holder Justice Department).
Most cases are normally handled strictly at the local US Attorney Office level as far as deciding whether to indict. Normally, that decision rests on two factors:
Is there sufficient evidence to indict and
is there sufficient evidence that the prosecution should expect to win in court?
There are, of course, what are called "sensitive cases" involving prominent suspects, political sensitivities, or issues that would arouse public interest or controversy. In those cases, decisions on indicting are generally referred to DOJ in Washington. Obviously, this is where things become dicey.
McCarthy and Poole know that even with a favorable administration, to indict leaders of an organization like CAIR would lead to a political firestorm and charges galore of "Islamophobia". Should that, however, in a matter involving terrorism and our national security, be a reason not to prosecute? Fear of jury nullification should not be an excuse to fore go prosecution. Let's face it. Marsha Clark wrote in her book that as soon as she saw her jury, she knew she would lose the OJ case. Would that have been a reason not to go through with the trial? Hardly. Jury nullification is on the jury's shoulders and their conscience-not the prosecution.
The decision whether to indict in this case should be based on the two factors above. Is the evidence there and is it sufficient to convict? Unfortunately, I suspect that Holder and his Justice Department are acting out of ideological interest.
This is not the Justice Department that I worked for.
Actually Gary, this IS the justice department you worked for. Thanks to civil service, not much changes between administrations. It has been nearly ten years since 9/11/2001. Why weren't there massive show trials during the Bush administration?
ReplyDeleteWhat you have linked to is a man of no particular qualifications, and no direct position of responsibility, petulantly posing the question "In my book, I said... so why hasn't the publication of my book resulted in indictments of those I published accusations about?"
In real courts, that's not good enough to indict. It may have been prior to 1776, but not since 1789. Perhaps the Attorney General doesn't see hard evidence which supports indictment. Perhaps the two criteria you enunciate haven't been met.
Maybe there are individuals within legitimate charities who are indeed using them as cover, but the broad brush of a sensational author far exceeds what the evidence will sustain against whole organizations and their entire staff.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteIt is not the career prosecutors who are the problem or the career agents. It is the political appointees that join Justice with every new admin. Along with Holder, that is the problem here. Thomas Perez is one. I have named a couple of others whose names I don't recall.
When it comes to "Our Government Blocking Prosecurtion of CAIR et al?", there are many pieces to this picture puzzle to reveal an image. First, there is the voracity of Eric Holder, who has is own baggage when it comes to deciding who goes to jail and who goes free. Please remember the "get out of jail card" for Mark Rich who was pardoned by Bill Clinton. Second, he still makes these decisions, as we ponder his dismissal of the New Black Panther case that was a slam dunk case of voter intimidation. I recall Holder's lament when he stated that questioning his "Department of Just Us" decision, by Congress, was the equivalent to insulting "his people". Third, there is the non-prosecution of the Muslim Brotherhood groups, CAIR in particular. Now we look to Holder's boss who stated in his book, "Audacity of Hope", that if things get bad, he would "stand with the Muslims". So, is Holder helping out with this stand? There are Muslim Brotherhood advisors in the White House and an Obama invite of the M. B. at his Egypt speech.
ReplyDeleteEric Holder gave an oath to support and preserve the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights and a number of Amendments guarantees equal justice under the law. There must be a determination if Eric is upholding his oath and following the law of the land, which he must support.
If Representative King finds that Holder cannot provide equal justice, then he must step down.
Squid
Squid recites a number of other decisions he personally does not agree with, including one where Holder was a subordinate staff member, not a decision maker, and offers no facts relevant to why any of them were wrongly decided.
ReplyDelete(I will stipulate that the pardon of Mark Rich was hasty, poorly examined by the president, and I would not have granted it if I ran the zoo.)
Gary blames the decisions of political appointees, but makes no effort to substantiate that this sensationalist author has fulfilled the rigorous requirements for indictment, as distinct from the very broad standards for exercising his own freedom of speech. Indictment requires probably cause, expecting to be able to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Free speech is a given unless malicious falsehood about a public figure, or invasion of privacy, can be shown.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteMark Rich's wife gave huge domations to the Clinton re-election effort and the Clinton library. Enough said!
Squid
And Lord knows what else Richards gave to Bill.
ReplyDelete