Muslim Soldier Charged With Child Pornography After Being Granted C.O. Status

A Muslim U. S. soldier, who requested conscientious objector status because he said Sharia forbade him from going to Afghanistan to kill other Muslims on behalf of "infidels" (that, as Andy McCarthy says, would be us), stands now accused of possession of child pornography on his government issued computer. He cannot be discharged until the child porn charges are adjudicated, and he's not happy - in fact, he's been implying he was framed.

According to HOOAHcampbell.com: "The military began investigating Abdo in November of 2010. They charged him on May 15, 2011, two days after he was approved by the Secretary of the Army as a conscientious objector."

One might ask how this guy became a soldier in OUR Army in the first place, but such a question would offend many of our brethren on the Left- even many of the higher ranking folks in OUR Army.

Putting aside the child porn charges for a minute, check out the below linked piece by Andy McCarthy, writing at National Review Online on Saturday. McCarthy is not only exercised over the decision to grant C.O. status to the Ft. Campbell soldier, he is also calling into question our entire counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.

"Turns out that the U.S. government has embraced a core tenet of sharia — that archaic corpus of Islamic law that Mitt Romney recently assured us would never gain traction in America. Patrick Poole reported at Pajamas Media on Tuesday that the secretary of the army has just granted “conscientious objector” status to Pfc. Nasser Abdo, a Muslim American soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan. Heeding the admonitions of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood operatives, the Pentagon accepts the claim that sharia forbids Muslims from assisting infidels in a war against Muslim forces in an Islamic land.

"News Flash One: The war in Afghanistan, an Islamic land, is a war waged by infidels (that would be us) against Muslim forces — the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, etc.
News Flash Two: The operating theory of the American counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan is that the hearts and minds of the population of this tribal sharia society will side with us non-Muslims in a war against their fellow Muslims, most of whom are also their fellow Afghans.

"Which is to say, our strategy is insane."

Here's the whole McCarthy piece:

Our Sharia-Compliant Afghan War - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

Andrew McCarthy - A Third Way to Try Terrorists

Andrew McCarthy, who successfully tried the Blind Sheik for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing - and put him away for life - is no fan of trying terrorists in civilian courts. He's also no fan of military tribunals which he thinks have done a poor job in the terrorists trials they have so far conducted.

Rather than just criticize, though, McCarthy has come up with a third way to handle trials for terrorists. He's calling for a national-security court system that will meld the best of both worlds: civilian courts and military tribunals.

The National Security Court System would be staffed the same way the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is staffed. The civilian judges would be assigned by the chief justice, and classified information would be protected. The terrorists would be granted rights that "are fair but that do not equal the constitutional rights of American citizens."

To prevent judges from inflating due-process protections, as they have liberty to do in the civilian system, Congress can prescribe exacting rules. Lawmakers can include a direction that terrorist defendants are not entitled to any rights, privileges, or protections not explicitly spelled out in the legislation. Government prosecutors can be given the power to appeal instantly if a trial judge suppresses evidence, dismisses counts, or tries to grant accused terrorists benefits beyond what Congress has enacted.

It sounds like an idea worth trying, but getting the legislative branch and the executive branch (especially Eric Holder) to agree on anything so revolutionary would probably be a bridge too far.

To read McCarthy's proposal in detail, which was published today on National Review Online, click on the link below.

How Should Terrorists Be Tried? - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

The Islamization of Turkey II

The inestimable Andy McCarthy is interviewed in the above video by Will Cain of National Review. It's now past the point where Turkey can be considered an ally of the United States. In fact the recent turmoil over the humanitarian flotilla fiasco off the coast of Israel was choreographed by Turkey, and that was just the beginning of what could possibly turn in to WW III should that Iranian ship headed to Israel achieve its objective.

Andy McCarthy wrote an extended article on the problem of Turkey's return to Islam for the paper edition of National Review, which can be accessed here.

Two previous posts on this Blog discussing the emerging Islamization of Turkey can be found here, and here.

Our Dissembling Attorney General

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith gives Eric Holder (whose time it is to go) a chance to show courage and speak clearly on the most important topic facing us today, but Holder is not up to the task.

Andrew McCarthy called Holder's dissembling: "the most painful two minutes of video you will ever watch."

Who Really is "Misguided and Irresponsible?"

Andy McCarthy, writing on National Review Online yesterday, turns the tables on Obama for his characterization of the Arizona Immigration Law, and by inference Arizona's governor, by pointing out just who has been "misguided and irresponsible" in discharging whose duties. Here are some clips:

Maybe that’s the Obama administration’s problem with Arizona’s new law: It is too short (16 pages), too clear, and too reflective of the popular will. Unlike the social scientists in Nancy Pelosi’s federal laboratory, state lawmakers didn’t need to pass the law first in order to find out what was in it. Essentially, it criminalizes (as a state misdemeanor) something that is already illegal (namely, being present in the United States in violation of federal law), and it directs law-enforcement officers to, yes, enforce the law. Democrats and their media echo-chamber regard this as radical; for most of us, it is what’s known as common sense.

Arizona is a sovereign state. Its citizens have a natural right to defend themselves, particularly when the federal government surrenders. The state’s new law does precisely that, in a measured way that comes nowhere close to invoking the necessary, draconian powers Leviathan has but refuses to use.

The law is clearly constitutional. Yet the Obama administration, having buried unconsenting Americans under avalanches of debt and inscrutable, unconstitutional mega-statutes, is mulling a court challenge, casting its lot with lawless aliens against besieged Arizonans.


Click below to read the whole article.
Illegal Aliens: Law and Sovereignty in Arizona - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

Andy McCarthy: Petraeus’s Israel Problem

To use the words Political and Perfidy in the same sentence with Petraeus would, despite the alliterativeness, grate on the psyche. Andy McCarthy's article, on National Review Online, about the recent flap over General Petraeus's semi (at least) dissing of Israel, though, brings those two words to mind. Anyone who still believes the general harbors no political ambition should read the full article, which is linked below.

Here are some excerpts (emphasis added).

And that’s what Petraeus’s counter-insurgency theory is: a civil-society strategy for an America that no longer believes we have to defeat our enemies first, that pretends most of our enemies are actually our friends, and that thinks we not only owe the world another Marshall Plan but one that starts in 1944 instead of 1947.

In January, after canvassing opinion from Muslim governments in his area of responsibility, Petraeus sent a team of CENTCOM officials to brief the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As reported by Mark Perry of Foreign Policy, the purpose of that briefing was to underline Petraeus’s “growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The general was doing politics, not combat strategy — and we don’t owe him any deference on politics. In a 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint presentation, Petraeus’s briefers reported, among other things, “that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, [and] that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.”

...Petraeus is echoing the narrative peddled incessantly by leftists in the government he serves and by Islamists in the countries where he works. According to that narrative, Israel’s plight is not a struggle for survival against immovable foes spurred by an Islamist ideology that must be discredited and defeated. To the contrary, this view holds, it is the result of a mere political conflict. It could be resolved, so the theory goes, if only Israel weren’t so intransigent...

As night follows day, Islamist sympathizers leapt on a statement from CENTCOM’s commander that Israel causes America’s problems. Stephen Walt, the Kennedy School’s reliable Israel-basher (and, many years ago, Petraeus’s faculty adviser at Princeton), quoted the general’s testimony to bolster Walt’s argument that Israel’s policies threaten American security and interests.

And speaking of spin, Petraeus is not encouraging further perusal of his actual words, because that would undermine his revisionist gloss on the testimony. He is now claiming he never meant to suggest that he thinks Israel is intransigent. He was merely relating the “perception” of Israel’s intransigence and of America’s pro-Israel bias. He was merely making the detached observation that this “perception” makes life difficult for the United States in the region. He didn’t mean to imply that the Muslim regimes are right or that the United States should exhibit a more even-handed approach by pressuring Israel to accommodate Palestinian demands. How could anyone think such a thing?

Well, maybe because it’s true. Maybe because the general framed this “cross-cutting challenge” as “insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace.” Petraeus is not a disinterested raconteur, nor was he pretending to be one. His purpose was not simply to relate facts dispassionately so that political officials could decide what to make of them. He was there to urge a political point of view: the need for “progress.”


Petraeus, it seems, has found a new friend and kindred spirit: the former senator who, in the darkest hours of crisis in Iraq, publicly branded him a liar...The senator who complained that the general’s testimony defied belief, Hillary Clinton, invited Petraeus to her Washington home shortly before being sworn in as secretary of state. The two of them sat before her fireplace and over drinks tacitly agreed to forget past differences and return their relationship to one of mutual admiration.

To read the entire article, click on the below link.

Petraeus’s Israel Problem - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

On September 22, 2009, this Blog posted an endorsement of General Petraeus for President. That endorsement is hereby revoked.



(To send this post to a friend, click on the below SHARE button, click E-Mail, type the address, and click SEND.)

So, You Still Want to Close Gitmo?

Andy McCarthy explained clearly yesterday, in the following article on National Review Online, perhaps the most important reason NOT to close the state-of-the-art prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So, You Still Want to Close Gitmo? - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

(Andrew C. McCarthy's new book: Willful Blindness is available at Amazon.com. You can use the search box on the right side of this Blog to read a review or order a copy.)

To send this post to a friend, click on the below SHARE button, then click E-Mail, and type the address.

So Who is the Coward, Mr. Holder?

Andy McCarthy wrote, once again, about Attorney General Eric Holder, on NRO. You'll recall that Holder, in one his earliest speeches after his confirmation, called the United States "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race relations. This from a guy who refuses to provide an honest answer about his position on the treatment of captured enemy combatants, when questioned before a Congressional Committee.

Here are some clips (emphasis added).

There is dishonest, and there is asinine. Combine them and you have Attorney General Eric Holder’s congressional testimony on Tuesday.

...Cornered, he insisted to Rep. John Culberson (R., Texas) that there was no need to answer the question of whether Osama bin Laden would be Mirandized on capture because . . . he won’t be captured. Holder guaranteed that bin Laden would instead be killed: “We will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden,” Holder said. “He will never appear in an American courtroom.”

...What is even more troubling than Holder’s stubborn failure of imagination is his twisted mindset. According to the Obama administration’s dogma, we must abandon the war footing that we’ve been on since 9/11, go back to approaching jihadist terror as a crime, and treat every perpetrator of a “man-caused disaster” as an ordinary defendant clothed in the Bill of Rights. This shining example of “our values” in action, we’re told, will impress the Muslim world and thus improve our security.

So how impressed is the Muslim world going to be when we summarily kill Muslims so that we can avoid inconvenient questions about Miranda warnings and thereby spare the Obama administration some political angst?

...Holder clearly believes — as he argued in the amicus brief he withheld from the Senate before his confirmation hearings — that our al-Qaeda enemies should be regarded as common criminals: given Miranda warnings upon capture and endowed with all the due-process protections of civilian defendants. This is an ill-advised position, but it’s not an uncommon one. It is predominant on the academic Left. Yet Holder bobs, weaves, and contradicts himself on the question — whatever it takes to avoid giving us a straight answer about his own beliefs. So who is the coward?

Here's the whole article:

This Corpse Has the Right to Remain Silent - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online


H/T: bkmck

Andy McCarthy: The Legacy Media's War on Conservatives

Andy McCarthy is upset about a hit piece in the L.A. Times today attacking the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. He wrote this today on National Review Online.

The Legacy Media's War on Conservatives - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

Andy is not the only one upset. Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator joins the fray and discusses the duplicitous nature of the main stream media in such affairs. Hillyer calls for a declaration of war on the establishment media. You can read his post on the American Spectator Blog by clicking here.

Expert Advice Should Not Be Ignored

That's Andrew McCathy (top) and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the two men who know more about the proper handling of captured terrorists than anyone else on the planet. McCarthy was the prosecutor who convicted the Blind Sheik for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The case was tried before Judge Michael Mukasey, who later became Attorney General in the George W Bush administration. These two experts have been warning ever since that trying terrorists, who commit acts of war against the United States, in our civilian courts is a major mistake. They both agree that such terrorists should be tried before military tribunals (preferably in a secure location such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba). The current attorney general, though, without consulting with these experts, apparently decided on his own (although no thinking person believes that) to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 911 attacks, in U. S. District Court in Manhattan, blocks from the location of destruction of the Twin Towers. It appears just lately that that ludicrous decision might be rescinded and any trial of KSM will be held before a military tribunal - something always considered by the vast majority of Americans to be a no-brainer.

Yesterday on The Corner on National Review Online, McCarthy discussed a piece from the Washington Post written by General Mukasey on the topic, and includes several informative links. Please take time to read all the linked material to acquaint yourself with the incompetence of Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department. Without trying to sound partisan, Eric Holder has not made one correct decision since assuming his current post, and it's really time for him to go.

Mukasey Shreds Obama Administration's Legal Claims on Christmas Bomber - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

Andrew C. McCarthy: It’s the Enemy, Stupid.

Andrew McCarthy, writing on National Review Online today, hits the target on what caused the big win in Massachusetts yesterday for Scott Brown. Health care reform certainly played a part, but it was national security above everything else that resonated with the voters. Here's a clip (Eric Holder take note):

The laws of war are the rule of law. They are not a suspension of the Constitution. They are the Constitution operating in wartime. The Framers understood that there would be wars against enemies of the United States — it is stated explicitly in the Constitution’s treason clause (Art. III, Sec. 3). The American people understand that we have enemies, even if Washington sees them as political “engagement” partners waiting to happen. Americans also grasp that war is a political and military challenge that the nation has to win, not a judicial proceeding in which your enemies are presumed innocent. The rule of law is not and has never been the rule of lawyers — especially lawyers we can’t vote out of office when they say we must let trained terrorists move in next door.

To read the whole piece click on the link below.

It’s the Enemy, Stupid by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online

Five Voices of Moral Clarity

In this the day of political spin, the aim of which is to disguise, obfuscate, prevaricate, or outright lie, it is refreshing to read the opinions of honest, intelligent writers who think and speak with moral clarity. Five such men are: Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Andrew McCarthy, Thomas Sowell, and Mark Steyn. These five will never be accused of being politically correct, and we are in their debt for that. If you listen to those who speak for the current administration, you will understandably be confused as to whether we are, in fact, at war, and, if we are at war, who it is we are fighting (this is still true even after the president recently deigned to mention the words "war" and "al qaeda" in the same sentence). The columns by each of the above five writers leave the reader laboring under no such confusion. Examples of their work can be accessed by clicking on their names above. Here are some clips:

Much of radical Islam’s posture is predicated on our expected response. When we did nothing during the Iranian hostage crisis, more or less whined after the Marine-barracks bombing, sent a few cruise missiles after the East African embassy attacks, litigated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and forgot the USS Cole, bin Laden concluded that the West was the “weak horse” and pressed on.
Victor Davis Hanson

This is a fanatical religious sect dedicated to establishing the most oppressive medieval theocracy and therefore committed to unending war with America not just because it is infidel but because it represents modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women), and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical). You going to change that by evacuating Guantanamo?
Charles Krauthammer

The FBI and the rest of our Islamophilic government have their story, and they’re sticking to it. The terrorists’ siege on our nation has nothing to do with Islam. It is the work of al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda terrorists — so the catechism goes — are not true Muslims. Sure, Osama bin Laden & Co. accurately quote Islamic scriptural injunctions to wage jihad against non-Muslims. But never mind that: Islam is an irenic, unmitigated good; in fact, it is one of our best weapons against terrorism.
Andrew McCarthy

In ways large and small, domestically and internationally, the West is surrendering on the installment plan to Islamic extremists.
The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."
Thomas Sowell

What did the Pantybomber have a membership card in? Well, he was president of the Islamic Society of University College, London. Kafeel Ahmed, who died after driving a burning jeep into the concourse of Glasgow Airport, had been president of the Islamic Society of Queen’s University, Belfast. Yassin Nassari, serving three years in jail for terrorism, was president of the Islamic Society of the University of Westminster. Waheed Arafat Khan, arrested in the 2006 Heathrow terror plots that led to Americans having to put their liquids and gels in those little plastic bags, was president of the Islamic Society of London Metropolitan University.
Mark Steyn

Andrew McCarthy: Holder’s Haste Makes Waste of Intel

Eric Holder’s Justice Department rushed to file an indictment Wednesday against Flight 253 terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The telling document is a monument to lost opportunity. Come hell or high water, the Obama administration will press ahead with its commitment to treat al-Qaeda’s war against the United States as a crime wave best managed by the federal courts.

To protect the United States, though, we don’t need Abdulmutallab’s conviction. We need his information. Wednesday’s indictment demonstrates what two weeks of Obama’s amateur-hour performance have suggested all along: We don’t have it.

Read the whole article by clicking below.
Holder’s Haste Makes Waste of Intel by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online

Andy McCarthy on Interpol's Immunity from American Law.

Former prosecutor (the Blind Sheik) Andy McCarthy had some interesting thoughts on why we are granting immunity from American Law, on The Corner on National Review Online a few days ago.

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

How to Keep KSM out of NY

Andy McCarthy, the prosecutor of the Blind Sheik for the 1993 bombing of The World Trade Center, has been asked innumerable times how we could prevent KSM and his friends from being tried in New York City, reversing possibly the worst decision made by this administration. He tells us how today in his piece on National Review Online. Here's a link:

Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online">Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online