Terror Trial "Debate"
I, like many of you, live in New York City. I, like many of you, was in town on September 11, 2001. I've cycled through anger, weariness, and apathy as the events of that day have been politicized in the most shameless ways possible—ways that have damaged the psyche and distorted the conversation in this country in far more traumatic fashion than the actual attack could ever have done. So I'm kind of surprised at myself for being almost inchoate with rage over the argument that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company in New York is somehow "letting the terrorists win" or "putting the city at risk again." The arguments are so knee-jerk, so ludicrous, that even attempting to refute them leaves me foaming and empty. I'm not sure whether to be more frightened by the possibility that this is pure cynicism or that people actually believe these things. Anyway, I thought Attorney General Holder's remarks yesterday (see below) were pretty much perfect; it is astounding to me that this is an argument that even needs to be made.
But Holder's mustache…how do I feel about it?
The same way I do about your comment?
The mustache is good. Mustache gets added to the list of things a black man can pull off that a white man can't — along with a fedora. Call me racist; call me essentialist — but show me a white dude with either (or *shiver* both) that doesn't scream "sys admin."
Jack Nance in "Twin Peaks". The white man must wear it old school.
John Waters?
OK, point. Yes, Eric Holder's dapper little mustache says "Harlem Renaissance." John Waters' says "I will tie you to the railroad tracks." But he makes it work.
Hey John Ashcroft: shut up.
Balk, I know what you mean. I was here too.
And I used to commute from Brooklyn to Newark for a consulting gig and pass through WTC to get the PATH. Seeing the tourists there, hearing them spin these REALLY WILD conspiracy theories pretty much every day – it was enough to make me want to slap them on sight.
A frothing and strident Balk??? I LOVE TODAY.
Schumer, Biden, Holder. Why is the Democratic equivalent of the Federalist Society the Hair Transplant Club For Men?
Democrats are obviously more virile and produce more DHT.
I love the argument against this: we have to protect America by… abandoning its judicial system…
Ugh, I know.
"He pleaded guilty at a secret military trial because I said he did, now kill him."*
*I'm sure I'm over-simplifying, but it sets a dangerous precedent.
Right: "The system might fail (to sentence him to death), so let's put him to death preemptively." Wha?
One of the downsides of terrorism is that it leaves people terrified.
It shouldn't be too astounding if you see who's making the argument.
Wouldn't even be here if President Dumbass hadn't been asleep at the switch prior to 9/11, as he was for most of his two terms.
Why Obama doesn't bail out NASA and put Gitmo on trial in space is beyond me.
I thought it was both refreshing and depressing to hear Bill O'Reilly, when reminded about all that silly "due process" stuff that's like, "the foundation of our justice system" or whatever, just straight-up sayI don't care about the constitution. I've been waiting for one of these neocon scumbags to just fucking admit it already for years.
The hypocrisy boggles my *(&#$__*&#&*@M<J~!!!
I remember some Civil Rights-era sheriff talking about what they used to call "outside agitators" saying something to the effect of, "When they start talking about the Constitution and rights, that's when I know they're Communists." Nice to see that attitude is still alive!
I would also just like to submit that if Democrats had pulled any of this “oh mah gaw, the terrorists, we can’t let them touch American soil or they’ll escape confinement with their terrorist magic and go around sodomizing our daughters, with pipe bombs, forever†(or, you know, otherwise participated in this cynical concern trolling re: our country’s ability to detain, prosecute, convict and sentence criminals just as we have been doing for centuries) they’d have been pilloried as homosexual French communists who love to blame America first. But when Republicans do it we are just having a debate, you see?! MAKES ME SO MAD.
I am so not looking forward to spending Xmas with my wingnut in-laws because of crap like this. It will be a miracle (praise Jesus!) if I get through the week without glassing one of them.
if you take "in-laws" and replace "grandparents", I'm in exactly the same situation. It sucks.
Replace with "brother" for me. Ugh. Equal parts dread, contempt and grudging filial piety (meaning, I will refrain from just smacking him on the head with a tire iron.)
First positive implementation of "inchoate" I've seen in half a year.
Remember to play it safe and never testify against your rapist. It will only make him madder.
I'm already thinking about how they're going to find an impartial jury for this circus. I mean, how many non-TV-owning old people are there in the outer reaches of Staten Island?
Can a lawyer tell me who will make up the jury pool? Folks from all 5 boroughs? Or beyond?
They're being tried in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The jury pool should include Manhattan, the Bronx, and Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan counties. Nobody from Brooklyn, Queens, or Staten Island.
Oh, ho. Interesting! I knew it was federal court, but I didn't realize that B/Q/SE were in a different district.
And, yes, an impartial jury will be an extremely difficult issue, among many. My fear is that this will be the legal equivalent of getting Ground Zero rebuilt. It will take forever and nobody will be happy with the result. They would have been better off trying these guys in military tribunals. There's no reason they should be afforded the same "due process" citizens are entitled to here. And I don't think military tribunals have to be unfair. That's what the Geneva Conventions are for.
And we all saw how well the Geneva Conventions turned out for people in military custody.
There was no pretense of applying them to these guys. That's why they were considered enemy combatants and not granted the protections of the conventions. They could have tried them under the law of war or, better, set up an international tribunal.
@0:45 in the youtube clip above, he says, "I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan…"
Well, duh…isn't anyone who sets their combat boot on a battlefield a target? Soldiers die in war; that is what war delivers.
And let's not get into the whole, "Well, you invaded their country…" angle.
Bush should have heeded Vizzini's advice, "Never get involved in a land war in Asia!"
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003791/quotes
Much agreed re: Holder. If it had been me there would have just been a lot of incoherent angry syllables and YELLING. One good thing: all this shows those Republicans up for the contemptible little wusses that they are.