By:  Charles Benninghoff

Washington, DC - Did the terrorists receive Miranda rights?  Was the evidence gathered legally?  Did the interrogators abuse the terrorists?  These are the questions that are going to be hammered away at by defense counsel for the terrorists in Gitmo that Obama is bringing to the Big Apple for civilian trials.

Obama refuses to admit that the Ft. Hood shooter is a terrorist, so why would he be concerned about these five murderers?

Barack Obama is corrupt, at the least.  Look at his words, "I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people, Obama declared.

However, the president also made clear that he would not defy the courts. He is, in essence, stating,  "I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I, too, am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these rulings," he said.

More recently, the White House has broadened the presidents vow while implicitly acknowledging that Obama may not have the final say.

The President has vowed that he will not voluntarily release any detainee into the United States, a White House official said in September.

He will not release them on U.S. soil, but a judge can, and then Obama will only be "obeying" the law.

You only need to recall that just a few months ago Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was ready to plead guilty at a military tribunal and ACCEPT the death penalty.  Now Barack Obama has found a way to release this terrorist in our midst and blame others.

At the very least, this is corruption of the English language and the rule of law in America.  Why does Obama apologize for terrorists--yet denounces a Cambridge cop? 

Does this say something about the influence of Alinsky, Ayres, Davis and Wright?