Maybe it’s me, but the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense seems to be inconsistent. The leader of the party, Malik Shabazz, defended Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to drop a voter intimidation suit involving one of its members. At first, Shabazz seems to dismiss the event, calling it, “a political witch hunt” by Republicans against Eric Holder. Shabazz also went on to say that the group does not condone voter intimidation, and it has suspended the member who was involved.

Here’s what I don’t understand: Malik Shabazz claims that the charges are false and nothing but a ploy to attack Eric Holder. Yet in the next breath, he talks about how the New Black Panthers do not condone voter intimidation and seems intent on proving it by bringing up the member’s suspension. If there was nothing to the complaint, then why was the member suspended? By suspending him, it certainly seems that the New Black Panthers thought he was guilty of something.

I’m sure the group won’t be called on this inconsistency. After all, it wouldn’t be politically correct. Instead, they will just take a page from the liberal playbook and blame everything that goes wrong on the vast right-wing conspiracy.

“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,”

I agree with the Governor, and I’m glad he had the courage to speak out. Every Democrat I’ve seen supports having the 9/11 trials in New York City. They seem to ignore a few facts: The trial will be a security nightmare, there is a greater chance of the defendants being set free on a technicality, and it has the potential of being a recruitment tool for terrorists. Plus, the 9/11 attacks were an act of war which call for a trial before a military tribunal. This should be common sense, but when you are interested in impressing foreign countries with your fairness, and also putting the Bush Administration on trial, judgement can sometimes be clouded.

I suspect that Governor Paterson’s remarks are at least partially related to some alleged problems between him and the President. That might very well be, but it’s hard to deny that this trial has the potential to risk the lives of many more Americans, and jeopardize convictions.

The five terrorists are war criminals. They were part of the planning of the 9/11 attacks that resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 Americans. Since they are war criminals, they should receive military trials. Many liberals are thrilled with Eric Holder’s decision, since it will result in what they perceive as a process that is more fair and transparent. They seem to forget that the terrorists will turn the trial into a circus, a great deal of evidence won’t be admissable, and intelligence information could be exposed.

Of course, the typical liberal doesn’t care. It will give them yet another opportunity to put the Bush Administration on trial. Do you remember them? They were the people who captured the terrorists and kept the United States safe for nearly 8 years. To them, the safety of Americans is all well and good, but it certainly can’t come at the expense of the “rights” of terrorists who aren’t citizens and seek to kill as many Americans as possible. Speaking of killing Americans, what about security problems? Won’t this just increase the risk of another terrorist attack in New York and place the safety of those involved in the trial in question?

Eric Holder seems to believe he has enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. He might be correct, but has he considered the defense attorneys that will stop at nothing to call evidence into question and cause a mistrial? This must have entered into his decision, but of course, the risk must be taken in order to assure fair treatment for the terrorists and a glowing opinion of us abroad. Isn’t that really the most important thing?