ZOMG! Terrorists On American Soil!

Hopefully being tried and then sent to prison for the rest of their lives, where they can rot to death next to the unabomber and Eric Rudolph:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and four others accused in the attacks will be put on criminal trial in New York, Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce later Friday.

The decision, described by people familiar with the matter, is part of wider announcement planned on how to bring to justice detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. It’s the first set of decisions before a Monday deadline on how to deal with the more than 200 prisoners remaining at the facility, which President Barack Obama has ordered closed.

The wingnut freakout over this will be predictable and amusing, because as we all know, real patriots have no faith in our judicial system and law enforcement officers.

*** Update ***

Literally, as I wrote this post, I got a Red State Action Alert:

Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.

In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime. At worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet again becomes a target for terrorists. We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.

You can find more details here.

Call your Congressman and Senator right now. Tell them they should use every tool at their disposal to block this. The number to call is 202-224-3121.

Sincerely yours,

Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

I love that his range of possible outcomes includes a “show trial” as the best possible outcome. Authoritarians simply have no faith in our Democracy whatsoever.






149 replies
  1. 1
    SpotWeld says:

    Red State…

    …they’re be trained to fear everything and hate “big government” until they’re totally dependent on the soothing voices of thier pundits, right?

  2. 2
    jon says:

    I know damn well that the real reason they don’t want to get this guy in a courtroom is that torture will be exposed. The defendants will be proven guilty, but that’s not important to nitwits if some other crimes can still be concealed.

    Rule of law, motherfuckers. Rule of law.

  3. 3
    burnspbesq says:

    This should have happened years ago. Unfortunately, we can’t unwrite the history of what was actually done, nor can we easily undo the damage done to our standing in the world.

    Moral high ground is an outmoded, pre-9/11 idea, apparently.

  4. 4
    thomas says:

    their lack of faith in our democracy is the reason they subverted it from 1-20-01 thru 1-20-09.
    Actually I should say the subversion started after the ’00 election, including the Brooks Bro riots and “5 to 4, I win”

  5. 5
    geg6 says:

    I don’t get the winger hysteria in regard to having real, actual, constitutionally required trials for Gitmo detainees. All they have to do is take a look at the size and population of our prison system to see that it is, if anything, the most efficient incarceration/killing machine since WWII. That is, if you equate incarcerating/killing as many (brown) humans as possible as “efficient.”

  6. 6
    El Cid says:

    Is the Red State Trike Farce suggesting that without a trial of KSM (which of course means he will be given access to the schematics of the Pentagon and the codes for our nuclear weapons so that he can sext them to his terror friends) in NYC, that NYC has somehow otherwise ceased being a target of terrorists?

  7. 7
    mark f says:

    I love that his range of possible outcomes includes a “show trial” as the best possible outcome.

    Oh, but it’s worse than that. Apparently on kleptocratic totalitarian regimes hold trials in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The American Republic should be above that.

  8. 8
    RememberNovember says:

    To Red Staters, Nuremburg would have been a show trial.

    Tho personally, I don’t thin khe will be in a very sympathetic venue.
    Erik Erickson needs to lay off the glog.

  9. 9

    Some cretins on the Twitters liken this to treating KSM as a common mugger.

    Because we all know that common muggers get sent to Guantanamo Bay for 8 years, then end up being tried by the Justice Department in Federal Court in Manhattan on multiple charges of conspiracy and murder, ending up rotting away in a Supermax spending 23 hours per day in solitary.

    Just. Like. Muggers.

    Seriously, the knee-jerk disingenuousness and ignorance on the right doesn’t just bother me, it’s downright scary.

  10. 10
    kay says:

    I don’t mind saying, I’m really pleased. It’s about time they were charged.

    And I care not one whit what any random fear-mongering idiot says about this, because it doesn’t matter: it’s not their forum or arena, thank God. Out of the pundit-sphere and into the legal one. About time.

  11. 11
    Punchy says:

    Wait…..WHAT?

    First RS says:

    In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him,……..

    THEN says:

    At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.

    So I should concluded that rights to an attorney, a fair trial, etc. are those consistent with a totalitarian regime? WTF?

  12. 12
    Wilson Heath says:

    So do they want NYC to burn or not? I’m so confused by the wingers being so confused on this point.

  13. 13
    Face says:

    At worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet again becomes a target for terrorists. We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.

    I smell a run (double pun intended) on adult diapers in Eric’s house.

  14. 14
    burnspbesq says:

    @Punchy:

    You big silly. Don’t try applying logic to the writings of Erick the Rabid. You’ll only hurt yourself.

  15. 15
    Dracula says:

    We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.

    Anyone know what he’s talking about here? Specifics?

  16. 16
    Bulworth says:

    “At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.”

    And a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime is one in which

    “…the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.”

    So now we know. A totalitarian regime is one that ensures criminals something like a fair trial. Ok. Got it.

  17. 17
    Brascal says:

    Franco’s Spain is the blueprint for the perfect Wingnut society. They might not be fully aware of it, but it’s there.

    Note to self: Find some Jonah Pantload fan and ask him his opinion of the generalissimo, that silly old liberal fascist.

  18. 18
    Warren Terra says:

    I love how Erick is unaware that (1) the protections of due process aren’t restricted to citizens and (2) courts have dealt with issues of classified evidence before.

    And I love the tag, of course.

  19. 19
    Citizen_X says:

    Wait, he’s complaining that KSM’s getting a fair trial, and then says that, at best, he’d get a show trial? Which would be shameful, but better than letting him have a fair trial? I haz a confuz.

    Shouldn’t Erick busy himself mailing salt or fake poop somewhere?

  20. 20
    burnspbesq says:

    One of the myriad problems with the RS crowd is that they still haven’t figured out that “24” isn’t a reality show.

  21. 21
    soonergrunt says:

    I know what to do! Quick, John, add handcuffs to your Amazon store so we can buy them and have them shipped to EricksonofEricksonofEricksonofEricksonof!
    Then they’ll be able to restrain the terrists and protect us all. They’ll be able to restrain each other too if you know what I mean and I know you do.
    Red State Handcuffs

  22. 22
    kay says:

    @geg6:

    I think they failed the real test, myself. The test is: do you follow the process when it’s really important? Because if you don’t, you never bought the basic premise anyway. I don’t know what it’s for if it’s not to be applied when it matters. I think due process is a theory they like to spout, but the actual application scares the shit out of them. They admire it, in an aspirational best-case, never-applied way, like a lot of their bed-rock principles.

  23. 23
    Michael says:

    Erick and the rest of the ignorentsia will have much to talk about, I’m sure.

  24. 24
    Brian J says:

    I just don’t get it.

    What exactly do these people think will happen to guys like this? Do they think the will somehow walk away or not get as severe punishment as the deserve? Do they think that a fair trial is only necessary for certain people and not for others, and if so, how do they reconcile that with their alleged desire to spread democratic ideals around the world? Do they not realize that if there is such overwhelming evidence of some crime, they shouldn’t have a problem with someone going into a trial, since they will likely be convicted?

  25. 25
    El Cid says:

    Remember that on the right the general view is that the only possible reason that you would hold fair trials with rules of evidence, lack of torture, etc., was that you were a weakling too sympathetic for the evil figure on trial to do What Was Right.

    They absolutely despise the notion that a society and Its Founding Fathers might so value their own dignity that they insisted on fair trials, controls on police from illegal surveillance and searches, the fair treatment of the accused, etc., and it wasn’t just that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and all were a bunch of pussy wimp fags who should have lead real men like Chuck Norris design our system of justice.

    They just don’t get the idea that you would want a fair and reliable system of legal justice for your own sake, not simply because of an excess of sympathy for the accused.

    By the way, note that in their view of a system of justice, you are free to act by the standard of what you think of the accused.

    So, if the accused seems to be a decent person (in your view) for a minor crime, then you’re okay acting like a decent person in trying them.

    And if the accused seems to be an evil beast, why, then, you’re perfectly free to act like an evil beast yourself, and if you don’t, why, you’re giving that accused beast more than he deserves!

    God forbid you design a system of justice and standards of behavior based on what you aspire your society to be, rather then seeking any excuse to behave in the most cowardly, beastly manner.

  26. 26
    wilfred says:

    Hopefully being tried and then sent to prison for the rest of their lives, where they can rot to death

    You left out the part where they get convicted. Show trial it is, then.

  27. 27
    Punchy says:

    I just don’t get it.

    It’s actually really easy. Answers to your questions, in order:
    Become Sec of Defense in Obama’s cabinet
    yes
    yes, becuz “democratic ideals” means stealing their oil and Willy Pete’ing their population
    they dont, becuz they’re intentionally obtuse and/or pure shitbags

  28. 28
    GregB says:

    Zo My God!

    Barack Hussein will allow the all powerful, shape shifting Al Qaeda super humans on our soil!

    This is not my America! We’re doomed!

    (Blackberried from under my bed while wearing a depends)

    -G

  29. 29
    El Cid says:

    @Michael: Igno-ranters?

  30. 30
    geg6 says:

    @kay:

    Oh, I agree. I have no doubts that the Republican Party, as it has been constituted over the last 30 years or so, holds no truck with the Constitution. They hate the Constitution and everything that comes along with it. They mouth platitudes about freedom and rights and principles and such, but deliberately distort what they are and the responsibilities that go along with them. They long for a totalitarian dictatorship, preferrably one with theocratic overtones. They are no different than the Taliban or al Qaeda in that. Where they do differ, it’s in that the Taliban and al Qaeda, however evil and horrible they are (and they are), at least have the courage of their convictions. Can’t say the same about the wingers and the GOP.

  31. 31
    mk3872 says:

    Wow!

    So, if John McCain were president now and Erickson had the ear of the WH, we’d have a new slogan for fighting terrorism:

    “The War on Third World Kleptocratic Totalitarian Regimes”

    It must be a dark, dark world righties live in to be THAT incredibly paranoid.

  32. 32
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    First Sarah lands a whopper land shark, and Red State calls out the puppies of war. Fucking Friday the 13th. I’ll be hunkered down in my bunker with my wabbits foot humming Mrs Robinson.

  33. 33
    kay says:

    @Brian J:

    They never really get to specifics. They offer nothing, but launch a blizzard of scary scenarios when anyone tries anything.
    These people haven’t been tried and it’s 2009. In this instance, Holder is up against an actual deadline. But things like that aren’t the purview of bloviating screamers. Those are practical, and real, and dull. “Technicalities”.
    I’m relieved because this needs to be taken away from pundits, and into some rational place where rules are applied. I’ve been listening to this uninformed nonsense for 8 years. Enough. We’ve really been poorly served by the deliberate delay. It’s corrosive.

  34. 34
    El Cid says:

    @geg6: The right would gladly overthrow every single basic principle of the Constitution, and would insist (at least in the first stages) that they were doing so in the name of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and anyone else they want to list as their predecessors in the Legion of Dumb.

  35. 35
    jenniebee says:

    So, if I’m following the member from Macon correctly (and that very possibility disturbs me to no end) it’s unfortunate that due process is being followed and KSM is getting a trial because we know he’s guilty which means this is a show trial and we’re better than that and what would be better than that is to give him no trial at all and definitely not allow him to offer any kind of defense because that’s the American Way.

    You know, intellectually, I knew that modern conservatism was the brainchild of former Trotskyites, but that fact never really hit home for me before now.

  36. 36
    kay says:

    @geg6:

    It’s really chilling to me. I’m to the point where I don’t want them on juries. This is more than a difference of opinion. This is a flat-out rejection of what they ostensibly signed on to. It has to be reconciled. We’re operating under two different sets of assumptions, and the set I’m relying on are The Rules.
    I don’t know where they’re getting theirs. We can’t have half the country making up rules willy-nilly. That has all sorts of implications.

  37. 37
    tomvox1 says:

    Um…New York City is always a target for terrorist attack. There’s no “yet again” about it, unfortunately.

  38. 38
    Brian J says:

    As Steve M. pointed out over at the No More Mister Nice Guy blog, we’ve tried terrorists who attacked New York and those who attacked the African embassies in the city before. Thus the enivitable whining from Rudi! Giuiliani and others will be even more retarded. Besides, you’d think they’d want if there, since the city itself was attacked, and while no area would be good for them, perhaps no place would be worse for them than New York City.

  39. 39
  40. 40
    charles johnson says:

    “Do they think that a fair trial is only necessary for certain people and not for others, and if so, how do they reconcile that with their alleged desire to spread democratic ideals around the world?”

    You don’t have to reconcile things when you’re too stupid to notice there’s a contradiction.

  41. 41
    eastriver says:

    I, too, received the ALERT MY HAIR’S ON FIRE thing from Ericka. Where did he get my email from? I usually give out a fake address. He’s buying lists from somewhere. Fricking spammer.

  42. 42

    Look at the outraged expressed toward the retired Army Colonel hired as Hasan’s personal lawyer. That chinless wimp Wolf Blitzer used the rather tawdry “how could you” line on the guy. His push back was quite refreshing. As Kay, El Cid and others have noted our justice system was not designed to try people we identify with, or someone how can imagine in a sympathetic light. It was designed to protect the most despised individuals among us and those who commit the most despicable crimes. I don’t think I want my children to fight and possibly die for a country whose justice system only benefits the “good guys”.

    The righties love the slippery slope argument when it comes to social programs. Allowing the government to pay for legal medical procedures or counseling for end of life decisions is only one step removed from Auschwitz! However, not surprisingly, this pack of mindless butt-sniffing jackals fail to see the erosion of OUR 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights when making exceptions for prosecutions, eavesdropping and torture when applied to individuals or crimes we all find repulsive.

  43. 43
    kay says:

    @charles johnson:

    It’s political, because they’re completely uninformed. Patrick Fitzgerald under Janet Reno dealt with the “defense lawyers leaking” issue way back in the 1990’s. It was pretty big news at the time, because I don’t read a lot about terrorism issues, and I saw it.
    For people who spend half their day peeing their pants about terrorism trials, they haven’t reasearched a whole lot.
    God forbid they should wait a half a day, do some reading, and then write an informed fear-mongering screed.

  44. 44
    geg6 says:

    @kay:

    You know, I love to laugh at these asshats, but deep down, they truly frighten me. I honestly believe that they are dangerous people who want nothing more than to subvert this country into a theocratic dictatorship. And that our fellow Americans not only don’t rise up against them, but cheer them on has been the most disheartening development of my adult life.

    I am more than a little depressed on this Friday 13th over the state of my country. I see the good happening (Obama’s intelligent Afghanistan decision making process, possible HCR), but I can’t see any of it overcoming all the horrors we’ve been through since 2000.

    Perhaps I’m just having a bad day.

  45. 45
    kay says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum:

    Look at the outraged expressed toward the retired Army Colonel hired as Hasan’s personal lawyer.

    That was fun to watch. I loved the quizzical expression on the lawyers face, when he first understood the question, before he got mad. He was thinking: “is this guy really this stupid?”
    Yup.

  46. 46
    SGEW says:

    I hate to do it, but I gotta link and quote Glenzilla:

    [T]he more consequential impact of Obama’s decision is likely to be overlooked: we’re now formally creating a multi-tiered justice system for accused Muslim terrorists where they only get the level of due process consistent with the State’s certainty that it will win. Mohammed gets a real trial because he confessed and we’re thus certain we can win in court; since we’re less certain about al-Nashiri, he’ll be denied a trial and will only get a military commission; others will be denied any process entirely and imprisoned indefinitely.

    One may argue that Greenwald is overreacting, but it is still important to react. The Redstate crowd is, obviously, hammering on the wrong point (the entirely appropriate civilian trials), but this doesn’t mean that those who actually care about due process and the rule of law (and know what the hell they’re talking about, contra Erick Erickson) shouldn’t maintain their criticism of the right point (the questionable military commissions).

    [Mind you, at the moment I’m personally quite pleased with the “splitting the baby” decision that A.G. Holder appears to be making in these specific cases (viz., attack a civilian target (the WTC), get a civilian trial; attack a military target (the USS Cole), get a military trial), but Greenwald’s overall criticism is entirely legitimate.]

  47. 47
    jrg says:

    Do they think that a fair trial is only necessary for certain people and not for others, and if so, how do they reconcile that with their alleged desire to spread democratic ideals around the world?

    I get it now. The far right cannot comprehend that fair trials and other legal protections are what make us a free country (presumably they believe our freedom comes from christianness, and whiteness).

    Since legal protections have nothing to do with our freedoms, when we worry about fair trials, we must be doing it because we want to coddle terrorists.

    It’s hard to understand because you have to think like an idiot in order to “get it”.

  48. 48
    El Cid says:

    …our justice system was not designed to try people we identify with, or someone how can imagine in a sympathetic light. It was designed to protect the most despised individuals among us and those who commit the most despicable crimes…

    Although this was the form of the design, I actually think that it was actually designed in order to preserve the souls and decency of the society at large, rather than most focused on the accused.

    It’s an old logic that simply goes nearly unrecognized in today’s society, outside of places like the military itself:

    I.e., one of the main reason you don’t want torture to be used in your society is not just the hideous suffering of the accused — it is that you don’t want to be a society of beasts and torturers.

    This is one reason why the right works so hard at scrubbing away any notion of dignity or self-respect — if they can convince you that doing evil upon someone else only affects the one receiving the evil you do, then you might be more tempted to do it.

    For an ideological movement so inspired to talk about God and souls, they sure are more than willing to urge their followers to think and commit any evil within their own souls as long as they’re convinced that they’re doing evil to unworthy individuals.

  49. 49
    Svensker says:

    @Dracula:

    He’s talking about Lynne Stewart

    Figured brave Erik the Faux Viking would be peeing his pants about following the Constitution. But the fine print on the Administration’s announcement isn’t so good, according to Glenzilla .

  50. 50

    @kay: We’ve had some interesting moments on cable news this week but that was my favorite. I can imagine the guy thinking to himself, “If Wolf Blitzer is this stupid …. If? … Boy are we screwed.”

  51. 51
    Morbo says:

    Indeed they don’t, and it doesn’t even matter if it happens. I once again heard the “benevolent dictator” discussion around the corner of the next office. It was only slightly less ridiculous than my grandmother’s Bush-worhipping version of the same. Yes, yes, it would be great if we had a philosopher king… sadly there is no such thing, and it certainly wasn’t El W.

  52. 52
    kay says:

    @geg6:

    This particular issue has been handled really dishonestly, IMO, by both the Left and the Right. Partly the Obama Admin’s fault, because emptying the Cuban prison by January was a fairy tale, and they had to know that.
    They’re dealing with the detainees one at a time, and there’s no other proper way to do it. That, to me, is what gets lost. We try individuals, and they’re all different. Even releasing individuals is different than some bumper sticker “free the detainees” idea. The detainees themselves would (and should) object to being treated as an “issue”. No other (presumptive) defendant would accept that. That isn’t how it’s supposed to work. Specific acts and specific persons.

  53. 53

    […] I know it’s Erick Erickson, so I shouldn’t really expect much, but still, this causes tremors in my cerebellum: Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist […]

  54. 54
    Svensker says:

    @jrg:

    I get it now. The far right cannot comprehend that fair trials and other legal protections are what make us a free country (presumably they believe our freedom comes from christianness, and whiteness).
    Since legal protections have nothing to do with our freedoms, when we worry about fair trials, we must be doing it because we want to coddle terrorists.

    I think you’ve really hit on something here. This makes a lot of sense to me.

  55. 55
    jenniebee says:

    @El Cid:

    Reading at the moment Fatal Purity, a biography of Robespierre, and your comment struck me as being very like what Robespierre and Danton were arguing in 1792. In short:

    In 1789, members of the 3rd estate elected to the Estates-General vowed not to disband until they’d drafted a constitution. Three years later, Robespierre is writing shit about how they have to overthrow the constitution for the sake of constitutional principles and the people who want to destroy the constitution are the real defenders of the REAL constitution which doesn’t exist but totally would, but to get it, basically the mob needs to murder a few thousand people. In Louis XVI’s last interview with Lafayette in 1792, Louis said that he understood that the constitution was his best safeguard and he bemoaned that he was the only one adhering to it.

    Meanwhile, the new “government” didn’t really do most of the stuff we consider governmenty – the top political players pretty much spent their time on political infighting, using any momentary advantage to get their former friends killed, either by the mob or sentenced in kangaroo courts and sent to the guillotine, and inventing new ideological purity tests to apply to just about everybody.

    When wingnuts start crying about how the only thing that’s going to get this country to get its priorities straight and realize how vulnerable it is would be another, bigger terrorist attack (and it never occurs to them that the absence of an attack is itself evidence of how wrong they are, QED) they are practically quoting the Committee for Public Safety’s arguments for instituting the Terror.

  56. 56
    El Cid says:

    If there’s one thing we learned in the Bush Jr. years, it is that there is a rock-solid portion of the U.S., apparently roughly 27-28%, who prefer us to be a non-Constitutional, authoritarian, roughly fascist regime with elements of Old Testament patriarchal Christian theology.

    Now, living in Georgia, I think that’s simply part and parcel of having a large section of our nation, the white conservative sections of the South, want that sort of country themselves.

    The really scary thing is that at any time, if the opportunity arises, that 27-28% just need enough of a portion of the rest of us to go along with us such that an election is won or close enough, then they can get closer to that or achieve it.

  57. 57
    kay says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum:

    I loved how he rallied at the end. It took him sixty seconds to appreciate the full extent of the idiocy, but he got there in time.
    Blitzer, the douchebag, had to have the last word, with his throwaway line about “innocent until proven guilty”. TECHNICALITY, he was thinking.

  58. 58
    joes527 says:

    @SGEW: I’ve never seen Glenzilla say anything that I could point to and say “That is just wrong.” His facts are too well researched and his opinions, while they might be right or wrong, are usually plausible.

    That said, I’m hoping that he is being overly pessimistic on this one. Taking the opportunity to be overly optimistic, we could look at this as a first step, admittedly a baby step, but an actual first step in the right direction.

    Or Glen might just be right. Only time will tell.

  59. 59
    kay says:

    @El Cid:

    Trials are technical and specific and dull, and they take a long time. This one is going to take forever, and they’ll have to know something to comment on it.
    I figure they move on in a week. Michelle Obama might change her hairdo.

  60. 60
    cleek says:

    i just got this one, too. was hoping you’d have it up.

    my favorite bit was this:

    In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

    the right to a fair trial? the right to review evidence against him?

    habeus whatnow ?

  61. 61
  62. 62
    Shell says:

    Shouldn’t Erick busy himself mailing salt or fake poop somewhere?

    My exact thought. No recommendations on ‘witty’ objects to mail to make their point? What would it be…squashed NY cheescakes?

  63. 63

    @kay: Somebody’s gotta fill in the big hole left by Lou Dobb’s departure.

  64. 64
    geg6 says:

    @El Cid:

    For an ideological movement so inspired to talk about God and souls, they sure are more than willing to urge their followers to think and commit any evil within their own souls as long as they’re convinced that they’re doing evil to unworthy individuals.

    It’s like what is happening with the Catholic Church in this country. Another frightening bunch. First, they want to dictate health care policy for all Americans through the Stupak Amendment. And now they are trying to dictate civil rights law in Washington DC by shutting down their charity arms in the city. I really don’t recognize America any more.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....id=topnews

  65. 65
    thomas says:

    I smell a run (double pun intended) on adult diapers in Eric’s house.

    Face at 13 FTW

  66. 66
    kay says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum:

    I’m watching Dana Bash. I thought she was completely biased during the campaign, but she was assigned to McCain, so I figured she was snacking with them, hence the complete capture.
    No. Wrong again. She’s absolutely thrilled to report that health care is defeated, nearly every day. Listen to her and then listen to Michael Steele. You decide. They’re saying the same things. It’s eerie.

  67. 67
    Karen S. says:

    @ El Cid (56)

    If there’s one thing we learned in the Bush Jr. years, it is that there is a rock-solid portion of the U.S., apparently roughly 27-28%, who prefer us to be a non-Constitutional, authoritarian, roughly fascist regime with elements of Old Testament patriarchal Christian theology.

    Yes. This is it. This roughly 27-28 percent yearn for subservience to to some fascist father figure. I remember just after Bush the Younger skated into the White House thanks to the SCOTUS in 2000 that I remarked to a co-worker something along the lines of “You do realize that the Republican Party is covertly fascist, don’t you?” He looked at me as if this had never occurred to him and said, “You’re right.”
    Nowadays, I’d say the GOP, not just its fringe elements, is overtly fascist.

  68. 68
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.

    Right, because banana republics are known for giving people fair trials.

    Idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot.

  69. 69
    burnspbesq says:

    @joes527:

    Greenwald = Chicken Little. Sometimes the sky really is falling. Other times, not so much.

  70. 70
    El Cid says:

    @jenniebee: I don’t think it’s an accident that here lately the right has become so fixated at trying to get the public to associate all totalitarian movements (from the Nazis back to the Reign of Terror) with the left.

    I don’t think it was necessarily any planning that got idiot lazy nimrod nepotists like Jonah Goldberg writing Librul Fatcysm, but the zeitgeisty realization that in order to push for their authoritarian right wing policies they must be given ideological clearance to do so as simply a reaction to left wing totalitarianism.

    They are, in essence, saying that they are willing to be Reagan’s / Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s right wing authoritarians who must take power either to save the nation from or roll back the gains of the left totalitarians, who are truly evil for all time.

    And they say this quite directly, usually by saying something like, well, Pinochet was only in power for 25 years and Chile was a free and successful country afterward, whereas Cuba is still a totalitarian hell.

    They don’t seem to mind that in Chile, democracy was in reality functioning just fine, I mean, other that right wing rebellion and attempts to block and overthrow the government. Their idealized right wing necessary transitional authoritarian anti-democratic counter-revolution was therefore justified in order to restore order from the chaos the right wing itself was causing, and although it was the right wing which actually destroyed democracy and imposed an authoritarian totalitarian regime of murderers, torturers, and raw materials barons, it was really okay because they had already lain the ground work argument that the democracy which had existed was only a weak and unworthy democracy if not gone already so overthrowing it was no loss.

    THAT is what they’re doing right now. It’s what their buddies in Venezuela are doing, it’s what their coup friends in Honduras have done, it is what their allies in Paraguay and Bolivia are saying all right now.

  71. 71
    SGEW says:

    @burnspbesq: I think you mean “Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

    The sky never fell on Chicken Little. But there was, indeed, a wolf.

  72. 72
    TR says:

    Is there anyone out there who doubts this guy is guilty? Why do they think they’re being manly for preventing us from sentencing this terrorist and locking his ass up forever?

  73. 73
    Brick Oven Bill says:

    TR says:

    “Is there anyone out there who doubts this guy is guilty?”

    TR, if I were a Muslim, which I am not, and was sitting on the jury, there is no way that I could find Khalid guilty. Everything Khalid did was fully justified by the teachings of Islam and, as Islam is a Great Religion in the eyes of this Administration and Muslims everywhere the practice of it should be hailed, not put on trial.

    You are again being an arrogant modern Liberal. Projection projection projection.

    2:10 *** 2:99 *** 2:104 *** 2:171 *** 3:28 *** 3:73 *** 3:48 *** 4:63 *** 4:89 *** 4:101 *** 4:144 *** 5:51 *** 5:57 *** 5:59 *** 5:60 *** 6:106 *** 8:55 *** 9:5 *** 9:28 *** 9:29 *** 9:30

    As an Infidel, I really hope that Eric makes sure Khalid gets a true jury of his peers, with several Muslims sitting in judgment. Watching Khalid walk on this Administration’s watch would be historic.

    As an aside, Eric Holder is ugly. He walks like an injured pigeon.

  74. 74
    LD50 says:

    My jaw dropped at Erik’s juxtaposition of these two statements:

    In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

    and,

    At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.

    So, what is basically a fair trail is, to Erik, ‘a show trial fit not for the American Republic’. Hunh?

  75. 75
    RSA says:

    In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

    There’s a weird disconnect between the objections that Erick is raising and the way that conservatives commonly view “rights”: that they’re natural and unalienable (a widespread libertarian view, I think) or that they’re God-given and again unalienable (a social conservative view). So how does that square with Erick’s description? Except for the taxpayer-funded lawyer, he’s describing rights that don’t exist simply because an American claims them, but rather rights that (acccording to conservatives) are pre-existing. How is this supposed to work again?

  76. 76
    jcricket says:

    Couple of other people already pointed this out, but it’s not just about terrorist. The right (and a lot of commentators) seem to think the “I know he’s guilty so defense isn’t necessary” school of justice is what we operate under.

    Basically it’s “guilty if proven so by TV news, until proved otherwise, and even then it’s a technicality and the justice system is a farce”.

    Nancy Grace, Wolf Blitzer’s outburst, etc. are just symptoms of this problem.

    People have forgotten what our justice system is designed to do/prevent. Perhaps they should get arrested in Iran, Indonesia or even Italy, where presumption of innocence, access to counsel, etc. are not so enshrined. See how they like the outcomes.

    I think, honestly, this same dynamic is at work when people look at unions with great benefits and, instead of saying, “I wish I had that” say, “greedy bastards. they’re lucky if they have a job. I don’t have benefits like that”. And the whole “give people healthcare and they won’t even bother trying to work, plus there are some that will game the system, so let’s not give anyone subsidies b/c I don’t want ‘undeserving losers’ to get it”.

    It’s depressing – b/c I think it bodes poorly for a huge swath of America’s ability to truly get on board with what we’re going to need to do for the common good (read: much higher taxes, esp. on corporations and high-income individuals, but probably upper middle class as well) in the very near future (or face total bankruptcy).

  77. 77
    El Cid says:

    So, what is basically a fair trail is, to Erik, ‘a show trial fit not for the American Republic’.

    Now you have it.

    Basic principles of Constitutional democracy are to be portrayed as hallmarks of a leftist totalitarian banana republic, so, it’s okay for right wingers to overthrow it, in their minds.

  78. 78
    LD50 says:

    @El Cid:

    The right would gladly overthrow every single basic principle of the Constitution,

    Not true. They’d leave the Second Amendment in there, tho perhaps with some proviso that it only applies to white people.

  79. 79
    El Cid says:

    People have forgotten what our justice system is designed to do/prevent. Perhaps they should get arrested in Iran, Indonesia or even Italy, where presumption of innocence, access to counsel, etc. are not so enshrined. See how they like the outcomes.

    That’s what the right wants — they claim to, say, hate Iran, which they do, but they want us to be much, much more like the Iranian regime, with the religion-driven government, the totalitarian control of media, the jokes of trials…

    The only beef they have with such regimes is that they’re on the wrong team. You find a pro-‘Western’ right wing regime, they’re on it quicker than sweet on honey.

  80. 80
    Svensker says:

    the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

    So what he’s saying is that those “techniques” are not legal under the Constitution?

    Out of their own mouths they condemn themselves.

  81. 81
    El Cid says:

    @LD50: Okay, you got me on that one. They would also get rid of the ‘well regulated’ part.

  82. 82
    jcricket says:

    @geg6: I grew up outside of DC in a neighborhood/area that was like 33% Jewish and 33% Catholic. My catholic friends and their parents were all reasonable people, liberal, ecumenical, etc.

    Now almost none of them are Catholic, having watched what the church has become.

    If your charity only extends so far as you can enforce your beliefs on the poor, huddled masses – you can fund it by yourself, fuckwads.

  83. 83
    Napoleon says:

    @El Cid:

    . . . in order to restore order from the chaos the right wing itself was causing. . . .

    This can not be over emphasized – that is always what happens, Spain, Germany, Chile, you name the country.

    BTW, if it happens here it will be some Republican President basically ruling by fiat because he claims Congress gets nothing done even though it is the right wingers gumming up the works.

  84. 84
    Arakasi says:

    In the usage I’m familiar with, a “show trial” is a trial that is carefully managed by the government to provide a predetermined “guilty” verdict, while giving the appearance of impartiality. That is probably why Erick, son of Erick, believes this to be the best outcome

  85. 85
    ellaesther says:

    I recently had to do some research and writing about the issue of transferring Gitmo detainees to the American justice system, and I was, all of a sudden, struck by one very powerful fact:

    These folks? These wingnut, Red Stater-type folks who think that Muhammad and anyone else who is in Gitmo (whether they “should” be or not) should not be allowed access to our criminal justice system?

    THEY HAVE NO FAITH IN AMERICA!

    Honest to Pete folks, do you know how many terrorists we’re holding in this country? 355!! 216 of them international! They’re all held in high-security or supermax prisons and not one of them has escaped or been at the center of a plot by other terrorists. Since 9/11, the American criminal justice system has successfully processed 195 terrorists. Do you know how many have been convicted through the Gitmo system? Three. And two of them are already been released.

    The American Correctional Association (the largest in the country) has said that American citizens “would be safe from harm and free from danger should any detainees be transferred to a facility or facilities within the United States” — but what I’m getting from these wingnuts is that we can’t trust: a) the Constitution, b) our laws, c) our courts, d) our police and other security apparatuses, e) our prisons, f) the people who work in our prisons.

    If I worked in any one of those fields I would be fucking pissed off and insulted.

    /end rant. (For now!)

  86. 86
    cleek says:

    @RSA:

    a fluffer like Erikk doesn’t need to bother himself with such details. his job is to make enough of a spectacle to keep The Base agitated – and willing to donate cash and energy. they’re not going to fact-check him because they don’t care about historical facts or definitions of words; they’re in it for the outrage and the thrill of imagined victimhood.

  87. 87
    jcricket says:

    @El Cid: Good point. It all comes down to projection, right? This is probably why they like that Putin fellow so much. Soulful eyes, and all that.

    I have these depressing conversations with my “moderately conservative” friends (this is in Seattle) who seem to either become flaming liberals (as I am becoming) or hate-filled conservatives, as time goes on. The hate-filled ones start espousing all this totalitarian stuff, while simultaneously claiming the left hates Amerikuh for it’s freedum!

    They really phrase everything as an “us v. them” (working people v. lazy homeless shifty welfare queens; white America v. brown terrorist infiltrating muslim mexican wetback illegals; good Christians v. wife-raping atheist no-moral gay marriage polyamorous society destroyers).

    And with the exception of a few flaming liberals I know, the hyperbole doesn’t exist on the left. There are a few “ANSWR” types, but most are more of the Scandinavian bent (gee, a functioning social society doesn’t sound so bad, I’d pay for that).

  88. 88
    geg6 says:

    @jcricket:

    I grew up in a Catholic household. My mother got active in the civil rights movement through a local priest. They rode south on buses and marched on the Mall in Washington. From that, she got involved in the anti-war movement through the same priest.

    Today, my mother is no longer with us, but lived long enough to see all six of her children become so disillusioned with the Church as to leave it, with a few of us becoming militantly anti-Church/religion altogether. The priest who so inspired her left the Church in the mid-1970s after being disciplined for his activism. He is now a beloved actor here in Pittsburgh.

    Benedict, I hope, will be the death knell of the Catholic Church.

  89. 89
    SGEW says:

    Re: “Leftist Banana Republic”

    What they’re worried about is the consequence of post “banana republic” regimes: Pinochet was arrested for crimes against humanity[1], and General Bignone is currently facing prosecution for torture and disappearances.

    The objection they have is not to the tactics, methodologies, and pathologies of the actual Latin American dictators (as they espouse many of the same tactics, methodologies, and pathologies, of course[2]), but to the consequences some of those dictators met after they left office. This is what they’re actually complaining about when they reference “banana republics.”

    [1] It is my firm belief that Dick Cheney will take the “Pinochet Defense,” and will die peacefully in his sleep before being properly tried for war crimes. I’ve got money riding on it.
    [2] Projection is a hell of a drug.

  90. 90
    drag0n says:

    Meanwhile, over at Powerline, john Hinderaker is claiming that terrorism is not a crime.

    UPDATE: The New York Times happily falls in with the administration’s worldview, headlining: “Key 9/11 Suspect to Be Tried in New York.” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a “suspect.” But that, of course, is what the whole war vs. law enforcement debate is all about.

  91. 91
    Jay B. says:

    There are a couple of problems with Greenwald’s thesis — in the part quoted above, at least, I haven’t gotten to the whole thing yet — that I see:

    1. There’s a multi-tiered system of justice right now, regardless of “terrorism” that he’s not addressing. It’s not a perfect example, of course, but capital cases are equally capricious as to who gets prosecuted for capital punishment and who gets prosecuted for life sentences. The inherent unfairness of the death penalty in the American justice system is so widespread and manifest (and I’m sure Greenwald agrees) that this decision toward actual rule of law in this terrorism case should be considered a step in the right direction to re-establish rule of law. There are plenty of other examples of a multi-tiered system of justice throughout the system and factors include race and class (the classic crack versus coke argument among manifest others). It’s a very rigged and imperfect system that’s rife with “multi-tiered” prosecutions and results and the outrage that Glenn is reserving in this case could only come with the expectation that it’s somehow unique in our rotten system which it manifestly isn’t.

    Which leads to #2:
    This is the highest profile case the Administration can muster. If they do this right and establish a decent precedence of fairness and transparency, there’s a better chance that they will follow it up with additional trials — in other words, the system, as imperfect as it is, could lead to a better outcome as much as Glenn’s implicit expectation that it will lead to a “multi-tiered” system of compromised defendants vs. innocent ones. We will have to see. It’s sad it hasn’t come sooner, but in this case in particular, the Administration was left with an endless amount of bad choices and they seem to have chosen the least bad path.

  92. 92
    El Cid says:

    @SGEW: I think it’s a mix. There is an immediate post-regime worry about how the former leaders will be treated.

    But, though from our point of view, this is the post-coup / post-regime period, I think from their point of view they have not yet had the authoritarian government of their dreams yet.

    Remember, what Bush Jr. and Cheney did wrong was not the authoritarian Commander Guy deregulation stuff, but giving up on it, or compromising too much.

    I think the right feels that it went the electoral route and it was insufficient to bring about their counter-revolution and now they’re sort of haphazardly laying the groundwork for their Pinochet / cacerolazo movement.

  93. 93
    kay says:

    @Brick Oven Bill:

    As an aside, Eric Holder is ugly. He walks like an injured pigeon.

    As an aside, we don’t really need commentary on Eric Holder from a person who was an Orly Taitz groupie.

    Aren’t you embarrassed? You flogged that moronic huckster here day after day, quoting her ridiculous filings as if she were Sam Adams, and she’s an embarrassing, sad joke, and everyone reading her complaints knew it. Except you. She’s been completely discredited. You quoted her as gospel. You show poor judgment. Consistently.

    It’s a measure of your enormous ego that you feel qualified to weigh in on Holder, after your near-worship of that clown birther, which you posted here.

    You and the rest of the tea bag suckers better make a donation. She skipped on her 20,000 dollar fine. She’s a crook.

  94. 94
    oklahomo says:

    Whenever I hear “Red State Action Alert,” I have this mental picture of a clown-nosed dude playing “Call To Post” on a kazoo whilst teetering around on a unicycle.

  95. 95
    ellaesther says:

    @ellaesther: God, I just glanced at this again and realized I should have said:

    LIKE JOHN SAID!!

    Because he said it in his post (“real patriots have no faith in our judicial system and law enforcement officers”) — I was just carrying the rant further, is all.

    Sorry John….

  96. 96
    New Yorker says:

    I’m just glad I have enough faith in our military to be relatively certain that the wingnut wet dreams about a Pinochet-esque white knight coming to save the country from itself will remain nothing but wet dreams.

  97. 97
  98. 98
    El Cid says:

    @New Yorker: You’re right about that; I don’t think that would be the most likely route for them to follow. But it doesn’t have to be an actual coup for them to basically organize around a pro-coup platform and ideology.

  99. 99
    SGEW says:

    @Jay B.:
    I believe that Greenwald’s main point is this (or you could go read him):

    Holding a civilian trial for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is absolutely praise-worthy; it is the right decision. However, in the same announcement, the DOJ declared that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and four other detainees will be tried by a military commission.

    Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has confessed, and will most likely plead guilty (or, at least, this is a purported belief of the prosecution).

    Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri may very well put up a very colorable defense – 1) the state’s evidence is either thinly sourced (or from untrustworthy/unavailable sources), 2) stale (al-Nashiri was detained in 2002), and/or 3) tainted (because al-Nashiri was fucking tortured for years while in American custody, under the explicit orders of the chief executive’s office).

    One of them gets a civilian trial (“I confess!”). The other one gets a military commission (“Would you like a cigarette with your blindfold?”). Worrisome.

  100. 100
    phoebes-in-santa fe says:

    I’ve always thought KSM in that famous picture looks just like John Belushi in Animal House.

    “College” = “Supermax”

  101. 101
    kay says:

    @Brick Oven Bill:

    “Orly Taitz has failed to pay the $20,000.00 sanction ordered by the Court on October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of the United States of America and against Orly Taitz in the principal amount of $20,000.00. The United States Attorney is authorized and directed to collect the judgment as provided by law.
    IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2009. ”

    Pay up, birthers. Actions have consequences.

  102. 102
    oklahomo says:

    @El Cid:

    Oh, now that’s even better. Men of the trike brigade, CHARGE!

    You’d think with the evil liberals now in charge of the government these idiots would be pushing for more protections under the constitution, not less. Oh wait, only that 2nd amendment counts, and the part in the first that says we have to cater to the Rapture nuts and not hurt their feelings.

    A robust justice system capable of handling citizens and non-citizens for any crime is so pre-9/11.

  103. 103
    oklahomo says:

    @phoebes-in-santa fe:

    Ron Jeremy, after a 5-day nonstop porno shoot.

  104. 104
    Xenos says:

    @oklahomo: Check out sadlyno.com

    As for Erick-Woods Erickson (why the hyphenated first name?), he somehow passed the Georgia bar. It is probably a good think he is wanking around on the internet and not actually practicing law.

  105. 105
    geg6 says:

    As usual in these cases of wingnut hysteria, the Rude Dude gets it right:

    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

  106. 106
    Xanthippas says:

    I am trying to understand how a complaint that he will receive all of the rights accorded to Americans in the criminal justice system leads naturally to a complaint that it will be at best “show trial.” Please help me understand this logic.

  107. 107
    Brian CB says:

    We don’t like, just hand out rights. Rights are inalienable. That’s what makes them “rights.” What we do is show that we’re not, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia and that there is hope for those who live in dictatorial regimes.

  108. 108
    Donald G says:

    Will someone kindly inform Erick Erickovich that “Sledge Hammer” was a parody, and not someone to model one’s criminal justice philosophies after.

  109. 109
    Steeplejack says:

    Erickson:

    In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial [. . .].
    __
    At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.

    The cognitive dissonance never fails to astonish.

  110. 110
    b-psycho says:

    Anyone else think this was partly to downplay Bin Laden?

    Before anyone barks: I think that’s actually the good part about it, since it looks like Bin Laden will never be caught.

  111. 111
    joel says:

    You know, there was a long time in the 50s-80s when Conservatives thought the gulag was a bad place, not an ideal.

    And there was a time in the 1990s when a Republican official couldn’t say 10 words without 3 of them being “Rule of Law.”

    It’s like we finally won the Cold War, only to have our staunchest anti-red forces all go join the losing side.

  112. 112
    Marnie says:

    Either our justice system works as a legal and just system of applying just laws or it doesn’t.
    Erickeson say it doesn’t.

  113. 113
    TenguPhule says:

    It’s like we finally won the Cold War, only to have our staunchest anti-red forces all go join the losing side. change hats.

    They were only good for turning food into shit when they barked at communists and they haven’t improved now that they’ve turned around.

  114. 114

    […] Red State Action Alert (via) […]

  115. 115
    TexVet says:

    When Eric von Doofus is incarcerated for being a traitor, let’s remember that he does not believe in due process.

  116. 116

    I would strongly encourage all Americans to arm themselves with a tire iron in case one of these dangerous accused felons slips out of custody. It is the Florida weapon of choice when dealing with terrorists who are lost and asking for directions, ……err, trying to rob you, … I mean attempting to fondle you,…..uhhh conquering the world!

  117. 117

    On the bright side, New York is a sanctuary city and to the degree KSM breaks out of his jail and creates havoc and destruction in NY, they certainly had it coming for the way they coddle illegal immigrants.
    BTW, I’m NOT saying KSM is an instrument of God’s Divine Justice. I’m just saying things have a way of working their way out.
    -RPTH

  118. 118
    chuck says:

    I’d have made some arch comment about how the military trials are obviously fair and just and how it’s touching they want an actual honest functioning justice system, but I simply can’t decipher the the screamings of rabid howler monkeys. How do you ever get any semantics out of the keyboard-bangings that go on over at Redstate?

  119. 119
    PTirebiter says:

    I’ve heard three or four different stations report on Holder’s announcement this morning.
    Even FOX emphasized that KSM’s full confession was obtained before we tortured him! Not to mention all the evidence we had on him before he was captured was legally obtained by the FBI. Is it possible that E.E. is now avoiding even the left leaning reporters at Fox?

  120. 120
    kay says:

    @PTirebiter:

    Which makes you wonder why he wasn’t tried properly prior to this point.
    Because conservatives simply didn’t feel like dealing with the complexity of these issues, or the political repercussions, so just warehoused the accused in Cuba, until they could get past the next election cycle.
    They didn’t do the bare minimum job they were hired to do, because it was and is difficult.

  121. 121
    tamied says:

    @kay: But of course they’ll be there to attack those who will try to do the job that should have been done long ago.

  122. 122
    Jay C says:

    @geg6:

    Yep, like RudePundit said: most right-wing frothing over the Obama Admins’ actions and policies is mainly the result of projection: the more he accomplishes, the worse their unthinking support for the failed policies of the past looks.

    The KSM-to-trial flap for merely exposes them for the hack partisan ideologues they are: their biggest fear seems to be not that the Obama/Holder DoJ will get the trials wrong, but that will do them right.

  123. 123
    Ian says:

    @Xanthippas:

    Please help me understand this logic

    Logic- theres your problem. You are trying to view this as logic

  124. 124

    When the bed-wetters at a third rate blog like Red State get in an uproar I’m not exactly surprised, nor concerned. When US Senators pile on, I have a rather harsh opinion.

  125. 125
    eyelessgame says:

    It has to be parody. No one in real life can think this… can they?

  126. 126
    PTirebiter says:

    @kay: No doubt, but their absolute and persistent shamelessness still confounds me almost daily. While I can’t really wrap my mind around th3e idea of an infinite universe, I can accept the reality of it. I’ve been around the block and I can say I’m not shocked but the truth is, I am.

  127. 127
    eyelessgame says:

    Can we mail a thousand boxes of Depends to Erick Erickson?

  128. 128
    kay says:

    @PTirebiter:

    I think it’s great, actually. This is a fight I want to have. It’s substantive, it points to real differences between liberals and conservatives, and it couldn’t be more bedrock or basic.

    This isn’t a difference of opinion. You either actually support these principles, as applied, or you don’t. They don’t. Our system hasn’t failed. Those who are too frightened to rely on it in practice announced it a presumptive failure.

    But, we’re right. They’re wrong. We’ll win, too. If we lose this “debate” , we’ve been wasting a hell of a lot of time honoring and lauding and crowing about a system that doesn’t exist, in any practical or useful or crucial sense.

  129. 129
    Hob says:

    We really ought to be more serious about the serious threat of this guy communicating with lawyers, who will pass on all his serious plans and threatening information to other seriously threatful terrorists.

    Since, after successfully organizing one terrorist plot, KSM has been rotting in dungeons for the last 8 years, I figure the conversation would go like this:

    “OK, are you sure the government’s not listening now?”

    – No worries sir, I’m your lawyer, please speak freely of your evil plans and I’ll commit it all to memory.

    “Listen carefully then. First you need to get in touch with Hassan H. Hassan, one of the most important terrorists in the world today — he’s literally the number three man in Al Qaeda…”

    – Uh are you sure about that sir, I’m fairly sure his death was widely publicized a few years ago.

    “That’s impossible, but in any case you can contact him or his successors at this phone number [REDACTED], and just say it’s a message from me and they’ll let you into the inner circle. I’m sure they have all kinds of crucial secrets to communicate to me, and instructions they’ve been waiting for me to give them about the plots and the ticking bombs and so on, now that I’m done getting tortured and driven mad by the CIA. No one knows these things but me. For instance, I had a plot to plant an explosive device in Baghdad, in case the Americans ever started a war there. They can go ahead with that now.”

    – Sir, I think someone else may have followed up on that already, but I’ll be sure to give them the message.

    “Well in any case, my main area of responsibility is terror attacks on American soil, of which I have committed thousands in the last 250 years. I’ve taken the outlines of our early-stage plots and worked out all the details in my head, while my head was under water. You know of course of the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge. We will bring it down as follows: peanut butter will be placed on the cables; then we set loose a cat with a raspy tongue who really likes peanut butter. What I need is a photograph of this bridge so I can determine how much peanut butter we need.”

    – I can get that photograph for you, sir; they can’t stop me. What kind of cat?

    “No, we have the cat already, I got it in Pakistan. I hope they didn’t let it get too fat.”

    – Is there anything else, sir?

    “Yes, but there’s no need for you to memorize the rest; I’ve given the other instructions to Larry, Bob, Sue, Jonquil, Damien, Armando, and BRQ-23 — just let them hide inside your iPhone case there. Go with God, you brave little purple guys.”

  130. 130
    PTirebiter says:

    @kay: Don’t get me wrong, I too welcome the argument when they present their arguments honestly. Bush and Cheney gave it their best shot and a right-wing Supreme Court told them to pound sand. Now they’re trying to re-litigate it in the court of public opinion- using the most obscene distortions and outright lies imaginable. That’s what still shocks me, I guess I thought they’d eventually hit some personal boundaries or discover some modicum of decency. EE again reminds me that I was wrong.

  131. 131

    I hope John will forgive me for this:

    Because the last thing I’d do would be to subscribe to a blog run by idiots of the particularly partisan stripe; I have to bring this to you courtesy of John Cole at Balloon Juice. I don’t like to poach wholesale from sites, but this is too … something:

  132. 132
    SensesFail says:

    When Eric von Doofus is incarcerated for being a traitor, let’s remember that he does not believe in due process.

    Amen.

  133. 133
    kay says:

    @PTirebiter:

    I feel as if it wasn’t explored in sharp, clear terms during Bush-Cheney.

    They had so cowed the press, and the issue had gotten so muddled up, so conflated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that gave them cover to make these ridiculous fear-based political arguments.

    They’re (now) saying that we are so compromised by the threat of a terrorist attack that we cannot administer our own system of justice, in our own country. I’m not really willing to surrender completely like that, and they are. We have to resolve this.

    I’m just completely confident in our position, and I look forward to a debate that so cleanly illustrates what these folks are really about.

  134. 134
    chrome agnomen says:

    these guys regard the legal statutes in the same way they regard the 10 commandments they’re always clamoring to be posted everywhere; something to display prominently and completely ignore.

  135. 135

    Damn, and here I was hoping that Erick was frothing at the mouth over the Obama administration’s announcement of death camps re-education centers for conservatives. No such luck.

  136. 136
    slippy says:

    @Warren Terra: Erk is a LAWYER.

    Which reminds me of this quip:

    Q: What do you call a medical student who graduates with a D average?
    A: Doctor.

  137. 137
    kay says:

    @PTirebiter:

    Too, it means a lot to me because Holder is the U.S.
    I cannot tell you how dispiriting it was for me to listen to the lawyers for the U.S. argue against the U.S. justice system.
    I never got used to that.
    So, the state is back on the State side, and we’re all in the same room, on this one issue, anyway :)

  138. 138

    @Brick Oven Bill

    As an aside, Eric Holder is ugly. He walks like an injured pigeon.

    As an aside your brick oven looks as if it was built by a bunch of retards and I’ve seen better looking slices of pizza than the shit you cook in it being thrown away at Sbarro’s.

  139. 139
    Al Swearengen says:

    @Brick Oven Bill:

    As an Infidel, I really hope that Eric makes sure Khalid gets a true jury of his peers, with several Muslims sitting in judgment. Watching Khalid walk on this Administration’s watch would be historic.

    Yes, your side scoring a political point is more important than bringing the 911 perps to justice, you dumb fucking child.

  140. 140
    kay says:

    @Al Swearengen:

    Alberto Gonzales just as much as admitted on CNN that conservatives didn’t charge or try the terrorists because it was too hard.

    The legal questions were too difficult.
    Oh. Okay.

    They amaze me. The defense to incompetence is an insistence that no one else can do anything properly, either.

  141. 141
    Nick says:

    The irony is if there ever was a reason for change of venue, this would be it. Who on earth thinks New York City is a good place for a fair trial? He’d get a fairer trial as a war criminal.

  142. 142
    Anne Laurie says:

    @eyelessgame:

    Can we mail a thousand boxes of Depends to Erick Erickson?

    Better, we could mail boxes of regular diapers to a battered women’s shelter in Erickson’s name. Women fleeing abusive spouses often bring their kids as well, so most shelters can make good use of diapers, and I suspect Erick the RedState doesn’t approve of letting wimmens ‘steal’ the offspring that properly ‘belong’ to those strong upright men…

  143. 143
    bob h says:

    That these people will be getting fair trials will actually be impressive to many in the Muslim world, and probably raise their opinion of us.

  144. 144
    Sanka says:

    The wingnut freakout over this will be predictable and amusing, because as we all know, real patriots have no faith in our judicial system and law enforcement officers.

    Once again, Cole loses the battle with conservative derangement syndrome and reality.

    Ok, I’ll bite.

    Yes! Yes! Those unpatriotic authoritarian and paranoid conservative Repubicans!!:

    “It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts,” said Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia in a paper statement. Independent Joe Lieberman, nominally a Democrat, calls the move “inconceivable.”

    Those racist Republicans up to their wingnut tricks again. Yeah yeah, I know. Lieberman and Webb are not real Democrats right? They’re just…well. They just need to be primaried! Yes. LET’S PRIMARY THEM!

    Quick Kos! C’mon Hamsher! Get off your ditty boxes in California and round up the moonbats and descend on Connecticut (a second time, it WILL work this time, because America is a left of left nation) and Virginia and primary these bastards!

    Expecting an elaborate post from Cole highlighting the inherent civil war in the Democratic party between the virtuous hard-core liberals and the squishy moderates in 3…2…1….

  145. 145
    kay says:

    @Sanka:

    Sanka, why weren’t they tried in a military tribunal?

    Conservatives had 8 years.

    Why did AG Gonzales and then AG Mukasey decline to act?

    AG Gonzales told the truth yesterday on CNN. They neglected to act because it was too difficult. AG Mukasey just ranted, but the truth is right out there. He did not do anything. He warehoused these five in Cuba and completely abandoned any responsibility for their eventual disposition.

    Conservatives also neglected to act, I believe, because doing so was politically perilous. Former President Bush knew that facility had to be closed. He stated as much. He just decided not to do the difficult thing.

    Holder had to make a decision. Conservatives, including Senator Lieberman, deliberately and for years avoided making one. That’s untenable. It couldn’t continue indefinitely. Someone had to make a decision, and the predictable chorus of ineffective conservatives chimed in to slam him. But he moved on this. And conservatives never did.

  146. 146
    kay says:

    @Sanka:

    Before this all goes down the rabbit hole;

    2006:

    (CBS/AP) President Bush says he would like to close the detention center in Guantanamo in Cuba, but is waiting for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether inmates can face military tribunals.

    “Obviously, the Guantanamo issue is a sensitive issue for people,” Mr. Bush told ARD German television. “I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court.”

    He then lost at the Supreme Court. Congress re-wrote the tribunal rules. How many convictions have been obtained in a military tribunal since President Bush announced that he recognized that the Cuban prison was detrimental to national security, and the detainees had to be tried?

    Zero. It’s a low bar. I’m sure Holder can surmount Joe Lieberman’s conviction rate, because it’s “zero”.

  147. 147

    ““It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts,” said Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia.”

    Umm … you don’t try criminals in civilian courts.

    You try accused criminals or people accused of a crime.

    Only after a trial and upon conviction can they be called “criminals” or more accurately, “convicted criminals.”

    This is not only Libel Law 101 but is the structural foundation of our country’s legal system as set forth in the Constitution.

  148. 148
    Hob says:

    Sanka: Jesus has told me not to call you a fool, and I really don’t have any way to know what’s in your head, so I’ll just say that what you wrote is ignorant, irrelevant, and insulting.

    Ignorant because Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat, as he chose with his own brave little head to leave the Democratic Party after he lost his own primary in Connecticut. Most Connecticut Democrats did not like him. He was then re-elected to the Senate by of the smaller number of Connecticut Democrats who did like him, plus the Connecticut Republicans. He has proceeded to criticize and undermine nearly everything the Democrats have done, and he is not a member of their party. It seems unlikely that you’re not aware of this.

    Irrelevant because even if Jim Webb expresses a stupid opinion similar to the stupid opinions of Republicans, there is an entire Democratic administration that is currently making policy without asking Jim Webb’s opinion. They have decided to respect the rule of law in this case, and as far as I can tell Jim Webb has done nothing to get in the way of this, other than expressing his stupid opinion. If Webb were like Lieberman, he’d be out there every day spreading lies about how Holder wants to feed your children to the terrorists, and sponsoring bills to defund the federal court system. I suspect several of us would support a primary challenge in that case.

    Insulting because you’re saying that no one here actually gives a crap about their ideals, or that no one here has noticed that there are plenty of Democrats who are on the wrong side of this. OF COURSE THERE ARE. WE KNOW THAT. And assuming you read this blog from time to time, rather than just blindly posting these little troll-flakes, you know we know that. You can’t possibly believe that when we say contempt for the judicial system has been a defining quality of Republicans, that we’re giving a free pass to Democrats for the same thing — not if you read this blog, or any of the hundreds of lefty blogs who write a bajillion posts a day about how aggravating it is when our Democratic legislators buy into right-wing BS. And you know this, because you admitted it — your joke(?) about John & the Kossacks wanting to primary everyone makes no sense if you think lefties are fine with their Senators being hypocrites.

    (Sorry to FTT. I’m sick and cranky.)

  149. 149

    […] course, the Trike Force, aka the redstate 101s Fighting Keyboarders, are barely keeping it […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] course, the Trike Force, aka the redstate 101s Fighting Keyboarders, are barely keeping it […]

  2. […] Red State Action Alert (via) […]

  3. […] I know it’s Erick Erickson, so I shouldn’t really expect much, but still, this causes tremors in my cerebellum: Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist […]

Comments are closed.