«Onde fica Jerusalém Oriental?»

Nas últimas semanas foi tema quente o estulto e hipócrita incómodo da administração Obama supostamente causado pela intenção do município de Jerusalém de construir um complexo habitacional, alegadamente numa "zona da cidade disputada pelos palestinianos" ― a propósito desta expressão, diga-se que todo o território de Israel se encontra numa zona disputada pelos palestinianos, razão que os leva a rejeitar sistematicamente as proposta para o estabelecimento de dois estados: pretendem um só estado, muçulmano, judenrein (purificado de judeus) e com os cristãos subjugados, à semelhança do que acontece hoje nos territórios sob a autoridade palestiniana; um estado palestiniano, do rio (Jordão) ao mar (Mediterrâneo).

Onde se situa, então, Ramat Shlomo (רמח שלםה) o local do absurdamente controverso projecto habitacional?
É ver e confirmar noutras fontes, se não se acredita no disparate.
Repare-se, a talhe de foice, na localização um outro projecto, igualmente controverso há alguns meses, o de Gilo (גלה).

«We’ve heard a lot of talk about “Arab East Jerusalem” and how upset the Obama administration is about Israel building in it. The only problem is, the building that Israel announced last week is NOT East Jerusalem – Ramat Shlomo is North Jerusalem! And six months ago, the Obama administration was yelling about Gilo – that is in South Jerusalem. So, is the Obama administration trying to make Israel look bad by distorting the truth? Take a look at this map of Jerusalem, courtesy of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, of Jordanian East Jerusalem before Israel won the land back in 1967. Ramat Shlomo is clearly directly north of the city, and Gilo is southwest of the city.»

Map of Arab East Jerusalem, 1948-1967.
Note the locations of Israel's construction, far from East Jerusalem.

In Middle East Facts Weblog, sítio a seguir.

CAIR inflitrado em editora dos EUA

Daniel Pipes, em português, acerca do modus operandi de uma das mais importantes associações muçulmanas dos EUA.

«O Conselho de Relações Americano Islâmicas está a postos para o seu ataque habitual na discussão sobre o Islã.

Seu escritório na Filadélfia fará uma entrevista coletiva em 17 de março quando pretende "anunciar o lançamento de uma campanha nacional com o propósito de contestar a tendência anti-islâmica em uma série de livros infantis que o grupo de direitos civis muçulmano com base em Washington diz promover 'hostilidade contra o Islã e suspeição em relação aos muçulmanos".

A referência é a uma série de dez volumes para o ensino fundamental II e o ensino médio intitulado "O Mundo do Islã" produzido pelo Instituto de Pesquisas de Política Externa e publicado pela Editora Mason Crest. (Só para lembrar, de 1986 a 1993, trabalhei como diretor do Instituto de Pesquisas de Política Externa; eu não tinha nenhum papel na série o "Mundo do Islã").

Tomando a dianteira da entrevista coletiva, seria de grande ajuda rever uma troca de e-mails incriminatória entre os membros da equipe do CAIR a respeito da série. O sucedido acorreu em 9 dezembro de 2009, quando o "diretor de direitos civis" do escritório do CAIR na Filadélfia, Moein M. Khawaja, enviou um memo à equipe do CAIR. Khawaja informou ter examinado alguns dos volumes da Mason Crest e marcado matérias consideradas por ele desfavoráveis (como, "A burca é um nítido símbolo da resistência muçulmana européia à assimilação na sociedade").

Apoiando-se em um informante na Mason Crest, Khawaja escreveu:

Eu recebi a lista completa dos pedidos para essa série (pedidos realizados até ontem). Essa lista mostra quais escolas distritais e bibliotecas adquiriram a série completa ou livros em separado - Trata-se de uma campanha nacional. É uma informação valiosa porque podemos contatar cada uma delas e explicar que na realidade receberam propaganda. Não tenho certeza a respeito das questões legais nesse caso – mas deve haver algo sobre mascarar propaganda em escolas e bibliotecas?

Karen Dabdoub do escritório do CAIR em Cincinnati respondeu mais tarde, no mesmo dia, que ela compartilhava com as preocupações de Khawaja.

Muitos desses escritores têm nomes que no mínimo parecem judaicos e nenhum deles lembram nomes muçulmanos. Embora eu saiba que não podemos julgar um livro pela sua capa, ainda assim tenho motivos para duvidar da imparcialidade contida nesses livros. Também chamou a minha atenção um outro livro [publicado pela Mason Crest - DP] sobre o Fundamentalismo Islâmico e a apaixonada análise crítica citada por eles da Associação das Bibliotecas Judaicas.

Ainda em 9 de dezembro, Babak Darvish do escritório do CAIR em Columbus respondeu:

Bem lembrado Karen, os nomes se parecem sim... um deles soa como sérvio ou romeno. Parece que todos que têm queixas contra o Islã estão criando livros para a lavagem cerebral da juventude para a próxima geração. Isso é realmente abominável, seria como neonazistas escreverem livros para o ensino do judaísmo nas escolas públicas.

Presumivelmente o nome que "soa sérvio ou romeno" é o do falecido Michael Radu, ex-coautor e escritor do livro publicado recentemente, Europe's Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West (Encounter).

Comentários: (1) Esse episódio levanta questões perturbadoras: O que o CAIR está fazendo com um "informante" dentro da Editora Mason Crest? Em quantas editoras ele já penetrou? E quais instituições culturais têm em sua equipe membros mais leais ao CAIR do que aos seus empregadores?

(2) Comentários sobre nomes de escritores "que no mínimo parecem judaicos" e outro que "soa como sérvio ou romeno" dão uma noção de como a equipe do CAIR pensa e escreve quando imagina não estar sendo observado, com atitudes tendenciosas e até mesmo racistas para com judeus e povos balcânicos, bem diferente da sua aparência pública habitual. (Essa aparência pública ocasionalmente também sofre deslizes, conforme eu já documentei em "Veja Quem Está Perfilando Agora - a equipe do CAIR.")

(3) Ainda mais alarmante é a conclusão, a partir do nome dos autores, de que a série da Mason Crest "é realmente abominável" e a sua comparação a "neonazistas escreverem livros para o ensino do judaísmo nas escolas públicas". Implícito a esse raciocínio é a falsa e degradante assunção de que os povos judeus e balcânicos não possam escrever sobre o Islã.

(4) Eu desafio a Editora Mason Crest a investigar quem de seus funcionários levou clandestinamente para fora informações de direito exclusivo do CAIR e em seguida informar ao público a sua identidade.

(5) E eu desafio o CAIR a repudiar e condenar as declarações antisemitas e racistas dos membros da sua equipe.»

Incompetência ou malevolência?

Charles Krauthammer, no National Review Online, sobre o incidente burocrático transformado em crise diplomática, e de como isso ocorreu:

«Why did Pres. Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?

And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don’t bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.

But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a ten-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.

(...) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move (...).

Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.

The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Clinton’s spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.

Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace — literally dying for peace — since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)

Israel made peace offers in 1967, in 1978, and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton’s own husband testifies to the remarkable courage and vision of the peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu’s defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a “peace process” — now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state — the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions — such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948 — before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.

Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called “unprecedented.”

What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.

Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That’s why the Obama administration has to resort to “proximity talks” — a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat’s groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.

And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?

Now that’s an insult.

So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies? (...)

Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world — and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that insists brazenly on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historic, and now present capital?»

O discurso de Allen West legendado em castelhano

Os nosso vizinhos dão o exemplo: traduzem e legendam discursos importantes e instrutivos.

Allen West Feb 19th in DC subtitled in Spanish from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Via La Yijad en Eurabia.

Recúo da Administração Obama no julgamento de terrorista?

Segundo reporta o Jihad Watch, a Administração Obama parece preparar-se para recuar na decisão de julgar Khalid Sheik Mohammed em tribunal comum.
Boas notícias:

White House: Hey, let's try the 9/11 jihadis in military tribunals

Great idea! Why didn't anybody think of it before? "White House reconsiders holding terror trials in civilian court," by Julian E. Barnes and Christi Parsons for the Los Angeles Times, March 5 (thanks to Mackie):

The White House is considering an end to its effort to prosecute the suspected Sept. 11 plotters in a civilian court and may send them instead before military tribunals, in an apparent retreat from President Obama's pledge to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies.

Last year, the Obama administration announced it would try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others in federal court in New York. That step came after Obama overhauled interrogation policies and ordered the shutdown of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But safety concerns about the trial have grown, and support for holding the trial in New York has eroded.

"It is politically untenable," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity because a decision had not been made. "No place wants to hold a trial."...

Lucidez e clareza

Registo integral da participação do tenente-coronel no colóquio já referido.






Leia Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims de Andrew Bostom.

Anjo caído?

Via Dusseldorf Blog, via Creeping Sharia.

Esperança na lucidez

Um político norte-americano, o tenente-coronel Alen West, candidato ao Congresso, responde à pergunta chave: como identificar o inimigo?

«…You must realise this is not a religion your fightting agaisnt; you're fighting a theo-political belief system that has been doing this since 622 A.D.—1388 years.»

«You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venetian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask…the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it is called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453?»

«You need to get into the Koran…and understand their precepts. This is not a perversion. They are doing exactly what this book says.»

«Until you get principled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail, because we will never clearly define who this enemy is, and then understand their goals and objectives—which (are) on any jihadist website—and then come up with the right (and) proper objectives to not only secure our Republic but secure Western civilization.»

Via Andrew Bostom, The Force of Reason e Creeping Sharia.

Alguns livros para saber de quem temos de nos defender.

Infiltração jihadista (19b)

Segunda parte da reportagem de Bill Whittle para a PJTV sobre a infiltração muçulmana nas forças de segurança dos EUA:



Pode ver aqui a primeira parte.

Via KitmanTV.

Infiltração jihadista (19)

Um excelente video conduzido Bill Whittle com duas entrevistas assustadoras quando ao nível de infiltração do islão apostado em destruir o Ocidente nas forças de segurança norte-americanas, mais concretamente nos serviços secretos, entre cujas atribuições consta, justamente, lutar contra o extremismo islâmico.
Video disponibilizado graças aos bons auspícios, ainda que involuntários, de Vlad Tepes - que sugere, muito justamente, que o leitor se torne subscritor da PJTV.

PJTV's Bill Whittle Islamic infiltration from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Commander in Chief

Uma cronologia da actuação da administração Obama, e do próprio, ao atentado falhado do dia de Natal:

Keep America Safe: "100 Hours" from Keep America Safe on Vimeo.

Via Hot Air.

Eufemismo de um eufemismo

De Roger L. Simon no Pajamas Media, sobre a absoluta necessidade de "chamar os bois pelos nomes":

«(...) “Man-caused disasters” is actually a euphemism of a euphemism, because the “War on Terror” itself has no real meaning. Terror is a method, not an end or a place. Fighting a “War on Terror” is like fighting a War on Cannons or Airplanes. Meaningless.

But we all know that the “War on Terror” is actually a euphemism for the “War on Radical Islam.” But nobody says it. Nobody official anyway. (Bush did say something like that once in a speech, as I recall, but was quickly shouted down by the nabobs of political correctness.) (...)»

Jennings investigado

Jim Hoft investiga no Big Government o caso de Kevin Jennings, o Safe Schools Czar nomeado por Obama - sobre quem já aqui falámos -, e desenvolve o já chamado Fistgate, por razões evidentes.
A investigação pode ser lida através das hiperligações para os artigos sobre o caso que se encontram neste postal, aos que se acrescenta um outro, publicado posteriormente.
Deixo, como introdução à investigação, o artigo de Doug Giles, publicado no Town Hall, através do qual voltei a este caso.

«Man, am I about to sound like an uncool, homophobic, bigoted zealot who should be on a terror watch list (according to the paranormal progressives). Why is that, you ask? Well, I think Obama’s G-boy, Kevin Jennings, should not be the Safe Schools Czar for many egregious reasons. Here are just a few.

I believe anyone who thinks it’s okay to teach 14-year-old boys how they can jam their fist up another 14-year-old boy’s tailpipe, or provides “fisting” kits for the kiddos, or thinks it’s neat-o to urinate on one another during teen sex, or passes out literature to your young ones on how they can find old pedophiles to hook up with at “gay leather bars,” or talks to your teen about the tricky pros and cons of spitting versus swallowing should not be the Safe Schools Czar.

Maybe Kevin Jennings could be the “Adam Lambert Eye Liner Czar” or Cher’s “Do You Believe in Life After Love Czar,” but not the Safe Schools Czar. But then again, there I go being extreme. Shame on me for not being a hip parent who’s totally cool with adult flamers filling our fifth grade kids’ heads with filth. I am truly an ignorant, puritanical, buckle-shoed killjoy, ain’t I? By the way, what the heck is up with liberals? They have their hands in our pockets, their noses in our business, and now they want their arms up our backsides.

How crazy of me that I would have the audacity to go public with the notion that someone who headed up an organization (GLSEN) that proselytizes confused kids on how they can insert their knuckles up someone else’s anus should not be the determiner of what is “safe” at school, eh? Hello!

Hey, Kev… last time I checked, trying to make your mate a hand puppet didn’t fall within the city limits of SafetyTown. Sounds kinda dangerous to me. Oh and here’s an aside for the butt pirates: Our rectums are an exit, not an entrance.

In addition, Mr. Jennings, apart from the “arm in arse” thing, from what I remember during 9th grade health class many moons ago, it’s also not wise to place one’s reproductive organ in the end of another’s digestive system.

A fist up a rectum? Are you kidding me? You guys sound like you have way too much time on your hands. If you’re in need of an idea regarding what to do with your fist, here’s one: Why don’t take your fist and smack yourself in the face with it for poisoning America’s kids with your perverted crap?

For those not in the know, Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, who was cherry picked by Obama, is not having a good week as whistleblowers are righteously shouting this guy down and trying to get him removed from calling the shots regarding what is nontoxic in your kids’ scholastic lives.

Why are watchdogs barking this dude down? Well, it’s not because he’s mildly gay but because he’s wildly militant in his homosexuality, and both he and his hombres at GLSEN have had no problemo whatsoever filling your kids’ heads and bodies with weirdness galore. For the unbelievable full list of what this man and his organization have advocated and continue to advocate, check out the fantastic work Jim Holt has done on “FistGate” at BigGovernment.com. Also, don’t miss Jennings/GLSEN’s “Little Black Book” for your sons! Hellish.

I’ve gotta warn you, mom and dad: What you’re about to read regarding “FistGate” is very sick and twisted. You’d better brace yourselves. I hope it thoroughly ticks you off that such baseness is being peddled to your babies. In addition, I hope you raise major hell with your elected reps about permanently removing Jennings from anything that has to do with your children and our schools.»

Infiltração jihadista (18)

Ou Como o Politicamente Correcto e a ideologia do Multiculturalismo matam.

Note-se também que a discriminação dos cristãos é apontada como a única discriminação religiosa negativa permitida, o que encaixa na narrativa esquerdopata de que as maiorias são de responsabilizar pelos males do mundo e as minorias nunca podem ser culpadas de mal algum.
Com o general só discordo de uma coisa: o nome do problema não é "terrorismo"; é "terrorismo islâmico".



Serve este email para referir os excelentes Cox and Forkum:

Infiltração jihadista (17)

O Sr. Choudary comenta o atentado terrorista de Fort Hood.



Via Vlad Tepes.

Conformidade com a sharia VIII

Pamela Geller, autora do blogue Atlas Shrugs, analisa no American Thinker a reacção da América ao ataque terrorista de Fort Hood e não hesita: os americanos estão a obedecer à sharia:

«(...) I have watched in abject horror the elites' stunning reaction to this act of war. The denial, the submission, the excuses, the dodging, the self-flagellation, the shame -- the deceiving of the American people by the media, the military, society, law enforcement, authorities and politicians, all the way up to and including the White House -- amounts to the enforcement of Shariah law.

Shariah law forbids criticism of Islam. And here we are.

We are witnessing an Islamized America. This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah law. We will not insult Islam -- that is Shariah law. We self-censor -- that is Shariah law. We disrespect ourselves and our nation so that we might respect Islam. This is dhimmitude. We should be raging; we should be outraged. We should be strategizing for this worldwide conflict. (...)»

Mudança na qual podemos acreditar (3)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Via Hot Air.

Infiltração jihadista (16)

Obama recusa colaborar com a investigação do Congresso ao massacre de Fort Hood.

«The first public congressional hearing on the Fort Hood attack will not include testimony from any current federal law enforcement, military or intelligence officials because the Obama administration "declined to provide any" such witnesses, according to a Senate committee source.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has released the witness list for its hearing (...).

But the list does not include anyone actively involved in investigating the Fort Hood attack, or anyone who might have been responsible for decisions made by various government agencies before the attack about whether to investigate the shooting suspect, Nidal Hasan. The Senate committee source said HSGAC Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) had hoped to have witnesses from the FBI and the U.S. Army, but was rebuffed in his requests.»

O título deste postal não se refere a Nidal Hasan, mas ao próprio presidente dos EUA.

Via Hot Air.

Alta traição (2)

Sobre a decisão de julgar Khakid Sheikh Mohammed em processo civil:

«''This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.

No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

(...) KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden (...) could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

(...)

KSM's lawyers will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.»

Via The Corner.

Alta traição

Em artigo na National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy reexpõe a sua tese, já defendida em postal anterior, mas explicitada com mais riqueza de pormenores e clareza de argumentos (no fundo, a diferença entre um postal num blogue e um artigo numa revista de referência).

«The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.

The five 9/11 plotters were originally charged in a military commission. Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. (...)

The Obama Justice Department teems with experienced defense lawyers, many of whom (themselves personally or through their firms) spent the last eight years volunteering their services to America’s enemies in their lawsuits against the American people. As experienced defense lawyers well know, when there is no mystery about whether the defendants have committed the charged offenses, and when there is controversy attendant to the government’s investigative tactics, the standard defense strategy is to put the government on trial.

That is, Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history.

This is exactly what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen. (...)»

A decisão de julgar Khalid Sheikh Mohammed em processo civil, ao criar condições para a divulgação pública de informação dos serviços secretos, colocando em risco toda a sua estrutura operacional, configura um crime de alta traição: Obama e companhia preparam-se para pôr à disposição dos terroristas presos e dos seus representantes legais informação confidencial e crítica para a defesa face à ameaça terrorista.
Para além disso, põe a anterior administração no banco dos réus.
Obama mata dois coelhos com uma cajadada.
Ganha o terrorismo islâmico e alegra-se a esquerda progressista e suicida. Perde a segurança dos EUA e do mundo.