The liberal meme de jour: those cowardly conservatives, afraid of the US criminal justice system
The word is out: the best way to defend Obama and Holder’s execrable decision to try KSM in civilian courts is that it’s just another example of the fraidy-cat nature of those well-known cowards, the conservatives. For example, we have Holder’s statement that:
We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.
Unsurprisingly, Kos says something similar in an article in the Hill—conservatives are cowards who don’t trust the American justice system: “Seems that macho conservatives are terrified of shackled terrorists in orange jumpsuits and the United States Constitution.”
You can see virtually the same accusation in the comments section of almost any blog that has discussed the KSM trial. It’s not just the argument de jour; it’s the only argument the liberals have, and they’re working it for all it’s worth.
Which is: nothing. It’s a fun argument, though. It sounds good, it turns those macho conservatives on their heads, and as for logic—well, who cares? But for anyone who does still care, let me just say that the military justice system is part of the US legal system, is in full accord with our Constitution, and has a long tradition of successfully trying war criminals, terrorists, and illegal enemy combatants, the category into which KSM most definitely falls. It is a question of which system of justice is most suitable for KSM.
As for fear—well, I’ve dealt with this question already here:
The real question is whether the fear is realistic or whether it is exaggerated, and whether the person is paralyzed by that fear, or whether he/she takes appropriate action to forestall the feared consequences.
The left has its own fears, of course, and they are potent motivators, as well. As previously stated, they fear abuse of power by our own government in the pursuit of national security more than any foreign threat. To parse it even more finely, sometimes it seems that they fear abuse of power by a Republican executive branch more than anything; back in the days of FDR they liked a powerful federal government well enough, when it was run by a Democrat.
I would add that the current stance of conservatives towards KSM and his civilian trial shouldn’t even be called “fear”—it could best be described as troubled concern, and justified concern at that. Why give other terrorists the sensitive intelligence information that any civilian KSM trial will of necessity drag from the prosecution? Why is the system of military justice perfectly fine for our own military, as well as the other less-well-known Guantanamo resident terrorists who have specifically not been exempted from it by the recent Holder/Obama decisions?
Why, indeed—because military justice doesn’t afford the Left the same golden opportunity to embarrass Bush, Cheney, and the CIA.
[ADDENDUM: Oh, and speaking of the American criminal justice system—Obama-style….]
We don’t fear the shackled terrorists. We fear illogic, if the purpose of the government is to protect this country.
In fact, we fear the motives of the government. The immediate motive seems to be the opportunity to put Bush/Cheney/the CIA on trial.
With growing anxiety we feel that this administration is inviting retribution for hudreds of years of past offenses – it appears that Obama and his associates want us to lose this war as we lost Vietnam. Rather than perceiving an existential threat they see some purgative effect flowing therefrom.
The fear stems from the realization that this government is not committed to the protection of the country.
I’ve seen the idea mentioned occasionally in comments on the Web, and I think it is correct, that the behavior of the extremely radical and/or corrupt major actors of Obama & Co., many of whom are Black–especially Barack and Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarret, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd at the FCC–has “ruined the brand” and is going to make it harder for Blacks running for office to be trusted and/or elected in the future. By voting for Obama voters tried to make history and instead are coming to realize–if slowly and only among Whites just yet–that they made a horrible mistake in voting for the lying, unqualified Black guy, instead of voting for the honest and qualified guy.
McCain/Palin wouldn’t have been perfect by any means, but compared to the demolition that the wrecking crew at Obama & Co. has performed on the U.S. in just these last 11 months, McCain and Palin would have been infinitely better.
What is truly inane is Holder’s statement that if the court finds the 5 terrorists not guilty or dismisses the suits, then other grounds exist for holding them indefinitely. So, why go to the effort of a Stalinist “show trial” if they can’t or won’t be dismissed. Will we “look good” to whomever it is the Obama and Holder want us to please with our insistence on having the trial if we refuse to release the defendants? Is this not, in and of itself, a form of cruel and unusual punishment?
Is there an adult in charge somewhere in this administration?
Slightly off-topic:
I was monitoring the enemy broadcasts on NPR earlier today, and it was reported that Eric Holder, testifying (er, speaking) before a Senate committee, responding to a question about the possibility of an acquittal in a civil trial of KSM by saying that an acquittal is out of the question.
The Obama administration wants to show the world that the Obama administration is so good, so brave, so fair, that it will provide foreign enemies with the same constitutional safeguards that apply to our citizens. And in the next breath, Holder says an acquittal is out of the question. In other words, this will be nothing but a “show trial,” just like the Nazis, just like Uncle Joe. And the similarities don’t end there . . .
don’t trust the American justice system
Bill Ayers is, unfortunately, all too available for comment.
Your link to the Obama gaffe underscores the point yesterday: the man is not that bright. He’s the constitutional law professor (he wasn’t, he gave the odd lecture from time to time, but let that pass), the greatest legal mind Tribe had encountered, the sun shines when he bends over, etc., …
…and he publicly prejudges the case? WTF??
I think we just figured out why he won’t release his transcripts from HLS.
Anyone who’d ever watched Law and Order once would know better than to do that. Can you say, “contaminated jury pool?” I can. I can also say “grounds for appeal.”
Sorry, consonant with the legal theme, the jury is back in. The man is an idiot. Straight up.
“Shackled terrorists in orange jumpsuits”? Isn’t Kos presuming guilt? Prejudicing the jury? I bet KSM appears in suit and tie and gets plenty of opportunity to strut on the world stage. And, if not, if he does appear in prison garb and shackled, won’t that be an image to inflame jihadists!
Is there an adult in charge somewhere in this administration?
That would be a “no.”
There are folks over at the libertarian law site Volokh Conspiracy trying to make some good arguments in favor of Holder’s decision. They haven’t convinced me, but they at least try to make a case how this could work out.
The problem is, those aren’t the arguments that Holder himself is making. He is making the emotional, political, you-guys-are-just-scared argument. The energy is being spent on making conservatives look bad, instead of on making terrorists look bad. Where Holder chooses to put his troops reveals who he thinks the enemy is. I don’t resent that because I fear it – I resent it because it is stark raving lunacy.
In earlier posts I likened the current situation with the layer-by-layer peeling of an onion. Far left causes in general, and the Obama administration specifically reveal a new and more fetid layer of their being with each passing month. The KSM trial is just this month’s chapter in this “Jimmy Carter on steroids” administration.
This makes for turbulent and unpleasant times, but it is also cause for hope. At some point all of these trends will reach a point of no return and this administration will implode.
Perhaps we have already reached the tipping point. Obama recently said that he did not want to leave the war in Aghanistan for the next president; could he truly be referencing 2016, or was this an unintended revelation that his administration has already given up on the possibility of reelection in 2012?
If the latter, then the next 12-14 months will be crucial because the administration will probably try to implement every possible irrevocable policy they can before the weakening of their power with the installation of the next congress in 2012.
I am not an avid fan of the Republicans, but with each passing month I become stridently more and more anti-Democrat. The current loss of independent voters by the Democrats makes me think I am not alone.
I put this argument in the same category as the “Sarah is a quitter” argument.
It’s mean. It doesn’t address the issues in any deep way. Yes, shallow.
It reflect a new kind of dimwitted knee-jerk liberal that is TURNING Americans off and away from Democrats.
My view?
My view is KEEP IT UP LIBERALS. You look like idiots who can’t address anything with substance. IQ of 80?
Neo wrote, “The left has its own fears, of course”
Like Fox News and Talk Radio. 🙂
sorry,
above (3:43) should read “. . .the installation of the next congress in 2011.”
The Federal Court system has hundreds of locations around the country, most of them much more convienient and secure than lower Manhattan. As a former NYC resident who lived there before and after 9/11 I can attest to the tension and the security nightmare staging this trial in the city will cause. I am willing to bet that any number of government officials warned the administration of this fact (although it would seem obvious) well ahead of time. Call me paranoid or delusional then for my belief that this is another Obama “statement”. With Brooklyn chock full of KSM supporters, Amy Goodman, Charles Barron, Amiri Baraka et al, this will be great opportunity to demonstrate the President’s and his supporters sympathies with KSM’s cause.
New Yorkers voted for these villains, and they may get paid back in blood for their recklessness in doing so. One bomb in one NYC restaurant and Obama looks like a fool. Democrats just don’t do the national security thing.
“I think we just figured out why he won’t release his transcripts from HLS.”
Transcript or not, he apparently graduated impressively from HLS: http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/09/harvard-law-school-confirms-obamas-magna-cum-laudie.html
Perfected, I addressed the magna business previously. To my shame, I have a doctorate holder from my research group who later struggled intellectually to meet the demands of a high school teacher. In my defense, I tried repeatedly to prevent this train wreck, but the university was adamant. No prizes for guessing why.
Obama may in fact have earned magna status – I’m not disputing that possibility. I’m saying that he was a good bet to get it unless he was so appalling that others in later years would laugh at HLS.
That conjecture is consistent with his resistance to releasing his transcript, whereas the converse proposition is not. Anyone who earned magna honors presumably has a pretty good transcript, yes? Why on this one issue is the man who proclaims himself the one we were waiting for, the one who would make the oceans recede, suddenly seized with bashfulness about telling us how wonderful he is? And how can we extend that modesty into other spheres?
Imagine the jury selection process, where all it takes is one closet sympathizer practicing “al taquia”; the Democrats have sold this country out…
Today’s New York Law Journal (I’d provide a link but I don’t believe it’s available free online) quotes Michael B. Mukasey, former US Attorney General, who, as a federal judge, presided over the 1995 terrorism trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in New York City, as follows: “The Justice Department claims that our courts are well suited to the task. Based on my experience trying such cases and what I saw as attorney general, they aren’t.” Mr. Mukasey has also told the Federalist Society that Holder’s plan “creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and circus for those being tried.” Clearly, he’s motivated by fear and cowardice, since it couldn’t possibly be that having been there and done that, he knows what he’s talking about.
Thanks, pd, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
I don’t know who Half-Sigma is, and I’m not willing to take his statement — that he “received an e-mail from a reliable blog reader” about this — as proof of anything.
If I see an authenticated Harvard transcript, I’ll believe what it says.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Having enjoyed the spectacle of the holes in the ground he wrought where there were two proud towers, KSM will go into court to wage war, deceive, resist and disrupt.
He’s not some petty criminal or small-time murderer abashed by any aspect of American Justice, cops or Legal Pomp. He’s a soldier and prisoner who will continue the fight by other means in the courtroom.
He knows he’s not going to be waterboarded, or discomfitted in any way; he’s on the offensive here. It’s going to be a farce.
Every f’in newscast for the next 2 years is going to start with:
“The shocking courtroom antics of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed today further delayed justice in the troubled conviction of the 9/11 planner….”
I’m with Daniel. I’d believe a transcript. Put it this way: how many NFL players are nominally college graduates?
Man, this is going to be great!:
Depending on what happens this “trial” is going to destroy either America’s Legal foundations, our ability to wage war against terrorist organizations or both. But, it will make for some fascinating television and political discussions….
Serving on that jury could be very bad for a person’s health. At a minimum it would lead to a lifetime of looking over your shoulder. I can’t imagine anyone with half a brain agreeing to serve.
I am willing to bet tha Obama actually graduated “thank-you-laudie”.
Obama gets distraction regardless of what happens.
Obama will also get legalization of martial law, which is a prerequisite for hostile takeover by the executive branch, should Khalid be found guilty utilizing what is recognized as torture today and very intrusive surveillance.
Obama will be able to blame the former administration if Khalid goes free. Then Obama will come in and save the day by imprisoning Khalid anyways, thus destroying the rule of law. It will just be the rule of Obama in Obamaca.
Plenty of other things can happen in this fog of war.
I’d like someone to ask Tribe whether HLS advises its fledgling shysters to speculate publicly on matters in which they are either ignorant (Skip Gates), or supposed to look impartial (KSM).
Maybe Barry missed that bit at HLS, which was probably late morning on day #1. Greatest legal mind? I wouldn’t let him represent me in traffic court.
Check out this exchange between Lindsey Graham (doing some good work, for a change) and our attorney general re: the KSM trial. Pick up on how cavalier the rule of law seems to Holder in this instance. Outstanding work by Graham (imagine that!)
Graham and Holder via RCP
Here’s the link – don’t know how that went wrong…
Graham and Holder via RCP
Shoot. I give up – here’s the full link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/18/graham_presses_holder_on_reading_osama_bin_laden_miranda_rights.html
mezzrow: Thanks for the link. Powerline links to a radio interview with Andy McCarthy that you would probably also like.
I would like to know how holding KSM as an enemy combatant after a not guilty verdict in NY would improve our image abroad. Does Holder really believe our enemies will be willing to listen to a lecture on miltary vs. civil law before raising hell in the streets? He and BO simply don’t have a clue about how their minds work or what really motivates them.
He and BO simply don’t have a clue about how their minds work or what really motivates them.
Same goes for us. But I suspect they’re about to find out.
Make KOS and the democrat traitors, including president O’Dumbo and Holder, a deal. The day a democrat liberal anti-american judge turns the terrorists loose (and they will) KOS and thousands of democrat traitors either jump from the tallest building in NYC or hang themselves and save others the problem of hunting them down.
Is there one person in the current administration who is not a known criminal? I can’t think of one.
Obviously the criminal justice system is simply not equipped to manage a terrorism/sabotage case. It wasn’t designed for it. So I’m waiting for a prominent Republican to point that out AND respond to the subtle charge of cowardice by stating how morally lazy and cowardly it is to burden the justice system instead of using military tribunals. Unfortunately I’ll probably be collecting SSI before it happens. Sigh, where’s Santorum when you need him?
Transcript or not, he apparently graduated impressively from HLS …
Daniel in Brookline: The truly faithful will grasp at any straw. But notice the awkward attempt at a qualifier, with “apparently.” If Perfected democrat will reveal his email address I will forward an email to him that will indicate that I am “apparently” JFK reincarnated.
As for the “trial” of KSM and his cohorts, real trials would not have the defendants certain to be detained if the charges were dismissed by the judge or a verdict of innocent was returned by the jury — there is no “trial,” only a sham, only the fiction of a trial. Obama is putting the US on the same level as the Communists in the Soviet Union and China, with their courtroom charades, their show trials, in which the outcomes were known beforehand. I’m appalled but not surprised. Ultimately, it is the way of the Left.
Hong is right: In reality, an ordinary trial is not possible for someone who murdered 2,976 innocent men, women and children that morning on 9/11. Such depravity does not and cannot fit into the ordinary system of American criminal justice. To believe that it does or even ACT as if it does only trivializes the event — but of course the Left has been doing just that in various ways since the event occurred.
The Left must demonstrate, must “prove,” even with only a judicial puppet show, that the act was only an act of ordinary criminality — on the same level as a drive-by on the Westside. Otherwise the Right and Bush/Cheney/Rove could be considered to have been justified in making war and such an idea MUST be dismissed.
grackle, don’t let the handle fool you; Perfected Democrat isn’t a liberal, he is patriotic, and he was making a legitimate point. I don’t accept the significance of the point, but the point stands: Harvard confirmed that Obama did in fact graduate with great honors.
The extent to which those honors were in fact deserved is the issue. Proving that they were should be trivial: produce the transcript. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to doubt the honors but for Obama’s reluctance to do this, which I find inexplicable.
“The word is out: the best way to defend Obama and Holder’s execrable decision to try KSM in civilian courts is that it’s just another example of the fraidy-cat nature of those well-known cowards, the conservatives.”
Yes, I’ve seen this line of attack on any number of liberal websites. It’s remarkably silly.
More, it misses the point of our objections, perhaps deliberately so. I think it’s a way of avoiding debate more than anything else.
Also, Steve G nails it in his 2:42 pm comment
Discovery won’t be concluded until two or three years after Obama leaves in 2012.
This latest move in the Game of Destruction is the equivalent of putting a tuna salad sandwich under the seat of an enemy’s car. In June.
STOP TRYING TO LOOK FOR “WHY?”.
It only make sense if you observe this group of actors as an attack on the institutions, traditions, and precedents of the Republic.
Obama arriving in the time of Reid, Pelosi, and Democrat majorities is exactly like John Wayne Gacey being made head of security at a child predator halfway house.
We are responsible for our own governance. Jefferson was right, just not cynical enough. What’s coming will be only our second (1861-65 being the first) national discussion with arms. We beat the “every twenty years” musing.
My earnest prayer regarding KSM is that whatever judge gets the first case – no matter how carefully chosen by Obama and Holder for activist track record – will reject the case on the grounds that the accused are not criminal defendants but illegal combatants.
And pigs will fly.
The pro-civilian argument doesn’t impress me either and I’m surprised so many people take it seriously.
I assume it is being done for political reasons and in accord with Obama’s wishes, despite his fig-leaf claims otherwise. The other interesting thing is that the White House notified the Governor of New York six months ago that they would do this.
So I can see that the Obama adminstration is salivating over the prospect of having this trial, getting back at Bush some more, and proving the superiority of their approach to justice — or so they hope.
Nonetheless, I still doubt the Obami have thought this through. There are so many ways this can blow back on them. The most obvious is a repeat attack on New York. Another is a terribly long, melodramatic trial that outrages Americans.
Does Obama really want Americans to spend the next severals months, possibly years thinking back to 9-11? Aside from reminding us of that trauma, the trial will likely use up all the oxygen for other discussions — such as healthcare. Is that an advantage? I wouldn’t think so.
Strangely enough, my guess is that Obama and Holder are also sincere, that they consider this is a teachable moment for the rest of us barbarous Americans.
It’s a Henry Louis Gates moment writ large and will do Obama and Holder at least as much damage.
grackle, don’t let the handle fool you; Perfected Democrat isn’t a liberal, he is patriotic, and he was making a legitimate point. I don’t accept the significance of the point, but the point stands: Harvard confirmed that Obama did in fact graduate with great honors.
Thanks OB, for the heads up on Pd’s political proclivity but even so … third hand unconfirmed chatter is nothing more than a kind of gossip. First things first: First it must be demonstrated that O graduated “impressively” and once THAT’S established beyond mere hearsay we can logically go on to your issue of whether he deserved the honors.
Perhaps O DID graduate as stated but for me to accept it someone with authority and access at Harvard must come forward, give it to the public directly and be quoted in a reliable source, not Lefty newspapers, not Wiki entries that come from Lefty newspapers and not some email from some commentor on some obscure sycophantic blog.
neo’s colleague, ShrinkWrapped, has a fine article fisking a recent Tom Friedman column.
Bear in mind that Friedman is one of the more coherent writers for the liberal side. Even so, the article is poorly reasoned and downright bizarre when Friedman ventures, like Kos, to explain the strange twilight world of the conservative mindset. Here’s Friedman explaining our opposition to cap-and-trade:
They believe the world is going to face a mass plague, like the Black Death, that will wipe out 2.5 billion people sometime between now and 2050.
Boom! Friedman follows that with somewhat more reasonable characterizations, but still…. This is flat, unsupported nuttiness.
I see this sort of thing everywhere when I read liberals. It may be that we are overthinking our opposition.
It may be that the liberals, from Obama on down to Pelosi/Reid to bloggers like Kos, Friedman and Sullivan, to the Democrats we meet socially, are having a breakdown. Within twelve months of Obama’s election they are now incapable of coherent thought.
Nothing is going according to plan. The stakes keep getting higher with the economy, unemployment, the Middle East, global warming, healtchare and terrorism, but there is no good news.
It was supposed to be so easy and beautiful once Obama was elected. It was supposed to be like the TV show, “West Wing,” happening in real time with a perpetual glow of self-satisfaction and the knowledge that We are the Ones we have waited for, and now America and the planet are healing.
But it’s not happening and I think these people are starting to panic.
I’ll tell you who’s not a stupid-assed affirmative-action Harvard Law grad:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
He finished his mechanical engineering degree in 2 1/2 years. I have an electrical engineering degree–it’s tough. I did well, but I couldn’t get an engineering degree in 2.5 years. KSM is smarter than I am:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120516152
He’s not a criminal. He’s a competant, highly motivated enemy combatant and he’s got nothing to lose; I sure he considers himself already dead.
I’m sure he will fire lawyer after lawyer and represent himself and “wage war by other means” in the courtroom.
This is 4th Generation Warfare: If he could come up with a successful plan to kill us with our own airlines. Imagine what he’ll do with our legal system against us. He’s a combatant, not a defendant.
Our civil legal system is wholly unprepared for this. Our legal system was never built to close with and destroy the enemy by close combat.
This case will either set precedents that militarize our legal system, or more likely, compromise our ability to gather intelligence and wage war against any enemy.
This is going to be a disaster….
grackle, you do understand that my moniker is a parody on Ann Coulter (who I generally enjoy), right?
If I were on the jury and the prosecution tried to introduce evidence obtained by coercion, without obtaining a search warrant based on Probable Cause; failure to Mirandize prior to interrogation; violation of Habeas Corpus and tainted by the prejudice of the Atty General and President, as a citizen, I’d be forced to acquit him if the case wasn’t dismissed with prejudice based on prosecutorial misconduct!
As a soldier, I would waterboard his ass until he floated then shoot him in the head after all useful intelligence was obtained.
What agreements were even in place to extradite him from Pakistan to here? What country was he actually a citizen of? Is there an agreement in place, or did we just extra-judicially kidnap him and violate Habeus Corpus?
How the hell is this supposed to work?
“I don’t accept the significance of the point, but the point stands,…”
I’d love to see the transcripts too, everything, but the honors simply imply that he did have a high grade average (since that seemed the point of contention by someone earlier), and my point was nothing more. I’d still like to see the original birth certificate, but “apparently” a lot of people (including some Republicans) don’t think it’s a relevant issue….
If the US Government can treat someone the way we treated KSM and achieve a clean conviction in civilian court, I fear for my rights as a citizen.
If the US Government forces the military to engage in combat in a fashion that preserves 4th and 5th ammendment rights of foreign combatants in order to obtain a clean conviction in civilian courts, I fear for my safety as a citizen.
This is insanity.
It’s insanity, generally; and conspicuously perverse, particularly…
When Lindsey Graham asked Holder if he knew of any other case where an enemy combatant such as KSM was tried in Civilian Court, Holder had no freaking idea.
The answer was “none”, according to Graham.
Gee, ya’ think maybe somewhere along the line AG Holder should have already researched that question?
-apologies if this was already covered above. I need to go to bed.
J. Peden: Links to that exchange were provided, but you did the yeoman work of describing the content. Thanks.
Yes, it was an astonishingly shameful moment for Holder that proves that the decision to try KSM in a civilian court was both politically driven and poorly thought out.
Not only that — it was reported on NPR.
As Krauthammer commented last night:
…the issue will become competence. There have been ideological objections against this administration — it’s left-wing, it’s radical, and all that. But now we’re starting a new kind of meme, that it is an administration that really can’t get things done.
Actually Krauthammer was referring to the botched business of the stimulus and the so-called “saved jobs.”
My point though is that much of America and the world is coming to realize that Obama — whoever he is behind the blank screen — is not competent at the job of being president. Many words go out, few results come in.
The passage of healthcare in the House may be the high water mark of Obama’s presidency.
There will be large amounts of noise and heat on this issue. My prayer is that, at the end of the day, we’ll remember what matters.
The bottom line, for me, is this: the protections of the American Constitution are intended for Americans. Period. KSM is not entitled to anything, anything at all, from the United States.
Do we owe it to ourselves, as some people are insisting, to give KSM a civil trial? Why? This only makes sense if we consider a law, and a courtroom, the answer to every problem.
“When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail to you.” We need to use the right tool for the right job. When there’s a fire, you call the firefighters, not the dogcatchers. When there’s a hostage situation, you call the SWAT team, not the meter-maids. And when there’s a foreign attack on American soil, you call the military, not the lawyers. The military knows how to deal with the likes of KSM; the lawyers don’t.
I’ve wondered before if American liberals, wishing for an idealized world government, have decided that wishing will make it so. Thus the worship of the UN, which from certain angles bears a passing resemblance to what the skeleton of a world government might look like.
And perhaps now, in boundless faith in our government and our justice system, they have seen fit to grant its protections, unilaterally, to any foreigner they choose — even the self-declared murderer of thousands — as though WE are the world government they wish to see. (Ironic, isn’t it? This is the same justice system that, last year, could not be trusted with the Patriot Act.)
KSM is an enemy combatant, and deserves to be treated as one. Worse, he is a terrorist, and as such deserves none of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, which were explicitly intended to ensure good treatment of soldiers and non-combatants. He is neither.
The best he deserves, for what he has done, is to rot in a military cell, in total solitary confiement, forever. (A better solution would be the one suggested by Brett Stephens in the Wall Street Journal — take him to NYC in a helicopter, let him admire Ground Zero from several thousand feet up, and then push him out. Let him suffer the fate of the hundreds who jumped to their deaths from the Twin Towers. But we’re more civilized than that.)
KSM does not deserve a jury or a courtroom, and we do not owe it to ourselves to give him one. We owe it to ourselves to make sure that what KSM did does not happen again — which includes not empowering his allies with public discoveries etc. If that is not our first priority in dealing with his ilk, then our second priority doesn’t matter much.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
“The passage of healthcare in the House may be the high water mark of Obama’s presidency.”
We can only hope!
grackle, you do understand that my moniker is a parody on Ann Coulter (who I generally enjoy), right?
I can’t say that I considered the significance of the moniker one way or another. I saw the statement, followed the link, did some research and couldn’t find anything reliable to confirm the statement — thus my comment on the subject of O’s academic status.
Occam’s Beard corrected me on the political persuasion of the commentor and was thanked for that. Considering the original statement alone, which would seem to be a fawning and poorly researched tribute to O’s academic credentials, I easily forgive myself for that error, just as I would if I had made the statement and someone else had reacted similarly.
I suppose it’s a good thing to know something about the personal political persuasion of commentors and even the significance, be it vague or obvious, of their handles but of course that doesn’t change my mind in regards to the question of whether or not O graduated from Harvard with honors.
Actually, an interesting analogy occurs to me here. (Bear with me for a moment, if you will…)
Have any of you heard of The Amazing Randi? He is a stage magician, one who consciously emulated his idol, Harry Houdini. He’s done many of the escapes pioneered by Houdini — and he’s also taken it upon himself, as Houdini once did, to expose the snake-oil salesmen pretending to be psychics.
(Please note that there’s no inconsistency here. Houdini never claimed that his amazing illusions were anything but that, “illusions”… and if anyone asked if he truly had magical powers, he’d be the first to say “no”. He was an entertainer, nothing more, and freely admitted it — and his audiences knew what they were getting when they paid for their tickets. Houdini’s beef, and Randi’s, was with people who did claim to be magical, but were not, and used that deception to fleece naive victims. )
So when charlatan psychics started showing up in scientific laboratories, astounding top scientists with their feats, Randi told them: “You fools, you don’t use a scientist to catch a charlatan. Scientists are used to dealing with a universe that plays fair. What you need are people trained in sneakiness — you need magicians.”
When scientists refused to listen to him, and continued to be wowed by the phony psychics, Randi showed them what he meant in classic Houdini fashion — he sent some of his proteges into the labs, to pretend to be psychic and surpass the feats of the others… and then to confess that they were magicians, and to show how their tricks were done.
– – –
The criminal justice system, likewise, has certain built-in assumptions: that people tried there are members of the society that is trying them, that there will be respect for order and for the rule of law, and so on. That system breaks down when trying people who have no respect for the system; that’s the problem, for example, with trying mob bosses, who don’t mind bribing, threatening, or even attacking the judge or members of the jury, if it’ll get them the verdict they want. (In such cases, please note, the justice system needs to ask for outside help. And if such heavy-handed influence never comes to light, the system breaks down completely; a dangerous criminal goes loose, because he went around the justice system undetected.)
For some cases, in other words, the courts are simply inadequate. Just as scientists are not trained to deal with a subject who is doing everything possible to delude them (but magicians are), similarly, the courts aren’t equipped to handle a defendant willing to do anything and everything to subvert the system (but the military is so equipped).
My apologies for rambling. Thanks for listening.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Daniel in Brookline,
Your parallel between The Amazing Randi and the justice system is spot on and should be cited anytime an Obamite tries to justify the KSM “trial.”
“… fawning and poorly researched tribute…”
You’re full of yourself grackle…
Daniel: Your comment about believing in an idealized world will make it so fits is a perfect description of European thinking. It is a world where ideas have higher status than facts and the greater the distance between the two, the greater is the social status of the idealist. Our liberals are trying to be accepted in this feudal world of idea mongers and have disconnected themselves from the reality of America. In fact, they are embarrassed by any residual connections.
What is really odd about this is that when a new hot social topic hits Europe, you can bet that someplace like the Manhattan Institute has been investigating it for several years. Of course, credit is never given.
The longer I have lived in Europe, the more aware I become of my American hard wiring and the less patience I have with those who prefer la la land.
You’re full of yourself grackle…
The commentor is entitled to his opinion, even insulting opinion offered without explanation. This old hide is mighty thick. But it still is kind of bothersome that when another commentor offered this opinion …
I think we just figured out why he[Obama] won’t release his transcripts from HLS[Harvard Law School] …
… that the commentor’s response was …
Transcript or not, he apparently graduated impressively from HLS
… backed up by a link to an obscure blog which chatters about an email purportedly received from one of the blog’s commentors — which of course would prove absolutely nothing.
And which would seem to confirm that the original statement by the commentor on the face of it would indeed appear to be a fawning and poorly researched tribute to Obama’s academic credentials. That’s MY opinion — offered freely but WITH explanation.
“…on the face of it would appear to be…”
Apparently not…
http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/10/barack-obamas-gpa-and-college-records/
Apparently….
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/316vvyov.asp
apparently [əˈpé¦rÉ™ntlɪ əˈpɛər-]
adv
(sentence modifier) it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly
Collins English Dictionary — Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
The longer I have lived in Europe, the more aware I become of my American hard wiring and the less patience I have with those who prefer la la land.
expat, I increasingly felt that way too, until finally I returned home. Europe struck me as a huge theme park, divorced from reality and as unaware of the nature of the world as children, because like children, they are insulated from it.
But now, with Obama in office, they may just get a rude awakening (in fact, I hope so). Would Obama step up to protect Europe? Maybe…maybe not. Probably not. They seem not to have figured that out yet.
Occam’s Beard: It seems likely to me that the US is headed towards a period of isolationism until we get our financial house in order and get Obamaism out of our system.
Europe may be looking at a very tough time.
the argument against applying the consittion to everyone, thereby stretching the clause of the self evident part in the preambple is that we respect self determination.
that is, we accept that those who live in other places have chosen to live under a different constitution. so rather than impose our will imperialistically and our constitition, we accept that they wish to live under theirs, and so ours does not apply
so while the potential for a constitition in which our rights are self evident and available for all, the truth is that some tell us they wish to live under a different one.
where the two meet law comes into play
so the islamic radicals have stated that they do not follow the document.
obama and the others do not realize that they are imperilaistically imposing a constituition upon people that done wish it, follow it, nor preserve it.
they DO have a right to it all, but that right comes from becomig a citizen where you tell us that you no longer wish to live under another constitution, antoher set of rules and so on
constitional protections are AVAIALABLE to all who wish to have them applied, but that applications is two ways, one must also be law abiding, that is one has to sign on to the social contract and the rules voluntarily.
THIS is how the founders and others could understand that their words described an ideal available to all who wish to practice those ideals and by doing so make them real.
those doing otherwise in a way in which their acts are in opposition to the constitutional astate and rule of law are combatants.
a criminal is not a combatant, he does not take a stereo because doing so will help break the american constitition. even if he steals to fund such things, its not the same as actually denying others of their constitutional rights in order to destroy constitutional rights and put in another form of state.
thats as simple as i can put it
sorry its too convoluted
if anyone can restate it better, i can learn
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
What you need are people trained in sneakiness – you need magicians
what you need is an “honest con man”
which is what such performers are.
they are honest con men
they tell you they are going to take your money
they tell you they are going to trick you to get it
they do their tricks and collect the box receipts.
the ONLY reason that they cn do this, is that we enjoy being tricked when we know the cost and accept it!!!!!!!!!!
but its still a con, a big one, but a con.
most entertaining is, and as we argued as to paris hilton, i could not get people to understand that their favorite forms of entertainment are cons.
this is also why the reasonable people do not get these new politics either.
they LIKE being conned… its fun
the problem is that they have also been declawed, and so they do not wish to start any kind of negative altercation. so they refuse to conclude that this con is not for fun. this con is as serious as the extermination of millions by some means that can be conned into accepting.
so the magicians con is a dounble con
he cons your money from you
AND he cons you to think its entertainment
and be happy doing so.
again, unlike the obamas, the ponzis, and others, the difference is he knows when to quit, and to leave a little something in return.
“…on the face of it would appear to be…” Apparently not… Apparently….apparently (sentence modifier) it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly
Collins English Dictionary … [etc., etc.]
I thank the commentor for the dictionary quotes. The commentor might also ponder the meaning of the phrases, “on the face of it,” “seem to confirm,” “would indeed appear,” and “would seem to be.”
I also applaud the commentor for providing a more credible proof of Obama’s credentials than he did before, his original source being nothing but hearsay. I say ‘more credible’ because even these later sources, as reliable as they may be, do not cite THEIR source for this information. Even the Weekly Standard is capable of error.
Speaking of the Weekly Standard, it is interesting to me that the gist of the Weekly Standard article, which was published during the Democratic nomination process, was that, contrary to Obama’s seemingly brilliant HLS performance, his Democratic primary campaign was “a confused thing.” In hindsight, considering that Obama handily won the nomination and general election, I think we can probably agree that the author’s judgement was a bit off.
Really vigorous proof would have to be something on the order of a quote in a reliable source from someone with authority from or over Harvard’s academic records department. My own research could not find anything like that which caused me to wonder if Obama’s graduation status from HLS wasn’t one of those everybody knows situations, as in everybody knows Bush lied, or everybody knows global warming is a fact, etc.
Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept for the sake of furthering the discussion that Obama almost certainly graduated from HLS with the highest honors.
No, not the highest honors, that would be J.D. summa cum laude, try again…
Duly noted, Pd. Obama may have graduated from the HLS with the second highest honor.
Artfldgr Says: a criminal is not a combatant, he does not take a stereo because doing so will help break the american constitition. even if he steals to fund such things, its not the same as actually denying others of their constitutional rights in order to destroy constitutional rights and put in another form of state.
thats as simple as i can put it
sorry its too convoluted
if anyone can restate it better, i can learn
The only similarity between a common criminal and a war criminal is the word ‘criminal’.