Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • How Obama is Bringing Martial Law to America

    Posted by Shannon Love on November 15th, 2009 (All posts by )

    In my previous post, I listed some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret.

    The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn’t that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.

    After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law.

    The Constitution recognizes only two types of trials, the civil and the military. The Fifth Amendment states:

    No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Until the Obama administration overturned two centuries of precedence, America had two systems of justice, the civil and the military. The military system played a very small and focused role. It served rough justice in the chaos of war and in places like the open sea in which no nation’s law governed.

    For over two hundred years, those captured by the military outside the civil boundaries or caught carrying out military action on US soil, were tried by military tribunals. Up until the 1950s the military used drum head trials to convict and execute those found fighting in violation of custom and international law. Pirates were often hung at sea within hours of their capture. In WWII, anyone fighting disguised as a civilian faced summary execution with the approval of just three officers.

    For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty.

    Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.

    They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face one’s accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods.

    Even if the courts throw out his conviction, the government will never allow him to go free, so we will toss out protection against double jeopardy if they try to convict with a military tribunal, and toss out the right of no imprisonment without trial if they don’t.

    Our system of justice relies on precedent and equality of procedure. The same rules apply to every civil trail. We can’t say that it’s okay to deny the right against self-incrimination in one person’s trial while saying it’s okay in another. If the courts overturn the rights of one individual accused, it must overturn the rights of all of them.

    Nothing good will come of this trial.

    If it is conducted outside the bounds of normal civil law, it will be nothing but a corrupt show trial whose outcome was preordained by politicians. Instead of showing the world that America is a land of laws in which even our enemies receive fair treatment, it will show the world the opposite.

    If it is conducted within the bounds of normal civil law, then it will force the courts to choose between letting a mass murdering terrorist walk free and setting dangerous legal precedents that will undermine the basic civil rights of all Americans.

    Obama has unleashed something in America far, far more dangerous than any excesses Bush might have committed. He has taken all the horrible compromises we must make in war and driven them into the heart of the civil legal system. If the courts do not set Khalid Sheikh Mohammed free, the cancer of martial law will metastasize into the entire justice system.

    We may eventually wish we had never caught the bastard at all.

     

    50 Responses to “How Obama is Bringing Martial Law to America”

    1. tyouth Says:

      This is such a bad decision for so many compelling reasons, I wonder if they can possibly hold to it.

      Mr/Ms Attorney-at-Law, is it possible the judiciary could decline to accept the case on jurisdictional grounds?

    2. Oldcrow Says:

      It will be years before these trials even start, the pre-trial appeals alone will last past Obama’s second term.

    3. Mad in Madtown Says:

      After reading this post, I wonder more about Obama’s legal qualifications and the University of Chicago’s decision to hire him as a lecturer at the law school, particularly since he lacked any significant legal writing.

    4. Ginny Says:

      Shannon describes the situation in which Holder can argue at once that this will be a showcase of America’s judicial system, and that he is sure the verdict will be guilty? Shannon points to that absurdity – either it is a show trial (with which the administration may see as an attractive historical precedent but most of us don’t) or he’s found innocent.

      As we have come to expect from this administration, the basic values of America (innocence before proven guilty, rule of laws and not of men) is not something they understand. As in certain political systems Solzhenitsyn described, there is no truth, just appearance.

      Thanks Shannon for your insight, but it is also hard to an innocent verdict as good – nor is locking him up in prison, with the most captive of audiences for proselytizing.

      Not that we weren’t warned. These are the people who think there are 57 states, after all. These are the people. . . oh, well, what difference does it make now. Obama is president and he’s going to define the office for the next four years.

      I was thankful that Bush was the kind of guy that defined etiquette in the oval office with respect, his a family that can sit behind an ex-president who witheringly insults them and still smile and shake hands. But restoring the dignity of the office after Clinton is nothing to redefining it after Obama.

      What thought will need to be put into gifts for the English to indicate that we don’t, really, want to insult our ancient friend? How can we defend ourselves after the drawbridge has been laid down and the fortress disarmed? How can we find justice in a justice system so compromised?

    5. Jose Angel de Monterrey Says:

      What can you expect of an administration with people like Van Jones and with strong ties with organizations like Acorn? It is pretty sad. The bad news is that he is dividing the nation, the good news is that this is probably going to be his first and last term. I don’t believe any independents or republicans will ever vote for him again.

    6. Soapbox Jill Says:

      I cannot understand how the President has the power to make the shift of military/war prisoners into the civilian justice system. HOW could this happen? Is there nothing regular American citizens can do about it?

    7. tehag Says:

      “Pirates were often hung at sea”

      And another subtlety of the English language is lost. It’s amusing to me that the strong verb is triumphing over the weak, but correct one. I’d prefer using the weak one for all purposes: “I hanged a painting.” “I hanged a pirate.”

    8. tehag Says:

      Seriously:

      Unexpected and delightful analysis. Drop this in your “check back in three years, five years, ten years” directories. I expected the trial to take years. It may not conclude before Obama is defeated in 2012 or resigns.

    9. Phil Fraering Says:

      By then the next guy is going to be stuck with the choice of either putting martial law in place or letting KSM go.

    10. Phil Fraering Says:

      And no matter what you choose, Mr. Obama or his successor will be running against the result in the next election after that.

    11. Shannon Love Says:

      Phil Faering,

      By then the next guy is going to be stuck with the choice of either putting martial law in place or letting KSM go.

      It won’t be a politicians choice of whether to let KSM go. It will the courts deciding whether to let the corrupt precedent spread through the legal code.

      This kind of show trial could do such damage that it would require constitutional amendments just to fix it.

    12. Michael Kennedy Says:

      the pre-trial appeals alone will last past Obama’s second term.

      Don’t scare a guy like that. Back when I was a college student, there was a joke that ran, “John Kennedy will serve two terms, then his brother Bobby will serve two terms, then their brother Teddy will serve two terms and then it will be 1984.” For obvious reasons that joke was retired early but this time it may be no joke.

    13. veryretired Says:

      How many times will someone have to say “No good will come of…” this or that decision by this regime before it finally becomes clear that “no good” is the entire purpose of the policy.

      There are two very interesting essays at NRO today. One posits that this trial is a way of putting the Bush admin on trial without actually doing it directly. I find it somewhat pursuasive. The other is an email from a reader regarding the nature of islam and some possible remedial actions. It was interesting.

      At any rate, I find no evidence that justice or constitutionality is a factor in these decisions, nor are they significant to the regime cadres involved.

    14. TMLutas Says:

      It will never happen but a House finding that this was a presidential misdemeanor along with Senate ratification in a trial should put the genie back in the bottle without having to depend on the black robes.

      For a judge to continue the trial after that would be career ending and relying on KSM precedents would likely be similarly toxic.

      On the merits, I’m not quite really sure whether the trials will go this way. The civilian court defendants very well might have made deals contingent on guilty pleas and backed by immaculately gathered confessions. At least it’s a possibility. I’m in the ‘keep your powder dry’ camp right now but it doesn’t look good.

    15. jt Says:

      Isn’t there a rule that a presidential pardon can’t be issued until *after* a conviction?

    16. Robin Says:

      It’s not like KSM has the kind of money that OJ Simpson had to get a reeeeeaaaally good lawyer! …oh…wait…

    17. Diggs Says:

      This is not intended to be a trial of KSM or any other terrorist. This will be a trial of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, various CIA agents, maybe some FBI Agents, and some Special Forces operatives. All of whom are considered, by Obama and his ilk, far greater threats to America than KSM. Obama understands that he cannot put Bush or Cheney on trial as his Leftard base demands, but he can have the Leftards swooning in the streets by having the Justice Dept listing every secret, every waterboarding, every name of every interrogator, every method used or abused…in open court.

    18. J. Scott Says:

      Make no mistake; this is political warfare and very dangerous. Gov Patterson said he was informed of this decision months ago—so this move wasn’t something arrived at through deliberation, it was part of the playbook to put the last administration on trial by proxy. So the left-wing wack-jobs may swoon and love the spectacle, most Americans will see the act for what it is—the efforts of a Chicago-machine raised Marxist to “clear the field” of opponents and to delegitimize anyone with an “R” after their name.

    19. jerry Says:

      It’s like Obama and Holder have never read the Constitution.

    20. Jay Says:

      “We may eventually wish we had never caught the bastard at all.”

      Worse, we may still be glad he was caught, but wish his captors had not brought him in alive. Which is an awful thing for a decent person to think, and a perfectly reasonable position in the scenario Shannon describes.

      Good work, Mr. Holder.

    21. tdiinva Says:

      The trial itself may be in violation of Article 84 of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Under this provision a POW cannot be put under the jurisdiction of a civilian court for an offense unless the power holding him puts his own military under the jurisdiction of the civilian courts. We place our military personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice not the civilian courts. A POW cannot be tried for war crimes until the conclusion of hostilities. For those who insist that KSM is a legitimate POW this trial itself is a war crime.

    22. Rev Snow Says:

      So, the best outcome for all involved
      would be for the plane transporting
      the “suspect” to mysteriously crash
      into the ocean on the way to NYC.

      Who might be able to arrange that?

    23. Rick Says:

      This is such an astoundingly stupid decision that it provokes the thought that behind it there must be some sort of deal, implicit or explicit, with our enemy. We’ll give up KSM, but will have to do so in a round about way: the trial will be a circus, “torture” and Bush will be the real targets, and the case will be thrown out on constitutional grounds. Holder will blame Bush, shake his head sadly, and say the rule of law leaves us no alternative but to release this man. Perhaps in return we are to get a brief hudna or something. At least I hope it is something more than a big Middle East donation to the Obama Presidential Library.

    24. shannon Love Says:

      Tdiinva,

      Under this provision a POW cannot be put under the jurisdiction of a civilian court for an offense …

      KSM is not a POW.

      A POW is not just someone capture by the military. Instead, POWs are lawful combatants who have been neutralized by capture. You can’t try POWs because being soldier fighting in accordance with the Geneva convention is not a crime. POWs are not criminals and the normal acts of war are not military or civil crimes.

      The Geneva convention classifies KSM and his ilk as “spies and saboteurs” because they intentionally fight disguised as civilians. According to the convention, they can be treated as their captors wish. Indeed, the harsh treatment of individuals who use such tactics is one of the key enforcement mechanisms of the convention.

      In WWII, people who fought like KSM where often shot upon capture. In that generation, it wouldn’t have occurred to anyone to even begin to confuse them with POWs.

      This trial does raise a legal question for those who claim that terrorist should be accorded the status of POW. If they are POWs then we can’t try them in a civil court.

    25. tdiinva Says:

      Shannon:

      I am well aware of KSM’s real status as unlawful combatant. However, pressure has been put on the US to treat all AQ members as POWs and not “violators of the rules of war.” Bringing KSM into Federal Court rather then try him under military jurisdiction is recognition of his status as legitimate combatant by the Obama administration. While it is true that UK brought back some unlawful combatants aka “Pirates to London for trial and execution these trials were conducted by the Admiralty and not His Majesty’s Courts.

      This trial will do two things. It will legitimatize AQ as a lawful entity under the laws and customs of war while at the same time undermining the intent and functioning of the Geneva Convention system. This is another nail in the coffin of the rules governing war established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. For those who don’t know what this means I suggest C.V. Wedgewood’s “The Thirty Years War” or for the 1970 movie “The Last Valley.”

    26. TexEd Says:

      Some of you have it right; this has nothing to do with KSM. It is all about seizing the headlines in the months and days before the 2010 election. Obama and his commie administration will be inept at prosecuting KSM, loosing procedural point after procedural point to KSM’s very sharp Saudi/Soros paid legal staff and then, defending their ineptitude buy blaming Bush, Cheney and our military.
      Bashing Bush was very effective in 2008 and they HOPE it will work in 2010. This is just more proof of what a no-talent, dishonest, dumb and lazy doofus Obama truly is (not his black half, of course, his white half).
      There will always be lunatics who will muster to scream the anti-Bush drivel they are instructed to yell. But, increasingly, Americans realize that the ONLY thing Obama has going for him is his complexion.
      Almost certainly, KSM will get off (it’ll take longer than 2010), but Rahm/Holder/Obama have either not thought this through or are desperate. The process will excite the anti-war crazies in NYC and Hollywood but will enrage normal Americans.

    27. Brad Says:

      Obama and his radical Leftist ilk want to put the American intelligence gathering apparatus on trial to soothe their twisted liberal guilt and perhaps permanently knock us down a few notches. This is so stupid that it has to be a calculated decision for a desired result. If the man is so stupid that he thinks this is a move that is somehow fair or will show the world what nice people we are, then he’s too naive to be president; if he intends to reveal and therefore destroy our intelligence gathering and defense mechanisms, he’s a traitor. Dumbass or traitor?

    28. Brad Says:

      And one other thing, didn’t we show the world what fair and nice guys were are by trying the Blind Sheik Omar and his minions in criminal court for the 1993 WTC bombing? How’d that turn out? Anyone recall any terrorist attacks on us after we so magnanimously revealed our sense of fair play?

    29. Marty Says:

      Jt–No, Ford pardoned Nixon before indictment or even a grand jury starting an investigation.

      Shannon, you may have answered your question from the previous post, about what Obama really understands and intends by this.

    30. gk1 Says:

      Is it possible the obama administration is doing this so stupidly we think there MUST be an alternative explanation suchas prosecuting the bush years, tickling the left etc. etc.? It could just be dull witted , provincial, oafs who really can’t think this through to its perverse conclusion, getting in way over their head. For instance, what has this crew done over the last year to make you think they are such slick operators? Obama’s amatuerish, clumsy ovatures to Iran? His deft handling of an unmerited Nobel Peace Prize? Or perhaps his amazing personal magnetism in getting the olympics for chicago? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a 2 bit hack is just a 2 bit hack.

    31. George Hanshaw Says:

      I think the author of this piece is abysmally ignorant of military law and the military justice system. I have been on several juries in my lifetime, and sat on several court martial boards, one as the ranking member.

      With close experience in both systems I can say that the military system is not only the most likely to provide justice, but the most likely to provide protection for the innocent. Having multiple well educated and well qualified board members with a whole lot of common sense able to question the witnesses (through written questions read by the judge) permits the jury itself to address the deficiencies in performance of both the prosecution and the defense – to get answers to the kwy questions necessary for the jury to come to a considered decision – and to get to the end goal of justice.

      I have long been retired – and I have jury duty coming up in just a few weeks. It will be another frustrating time of watching two lawyers performing in court – the decision left to how skilled each is at the arcane theatrics of jurisprudence. It shouldn’t be that way. The jurors should be allowed to ask for the facts that they truly need to make a considered decision, not be held hostage to the malpractice of the lawyers of both prosecution and defense. Justice deserves better.

    32. Tom Holsinger Says:

      I said something similar this last week in another thread here – https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10103.html#comment-329163:

      “Democrats have insisted, in the name of equality, on giving foreign terrorists attacking us all the Constitutional rights afforded American citizens at home. So, when the Democrats are faced with an overwhelming demand to cease giving terrorists Constitutional rights, to better protect ourselves at home from Islamic terrorism at home, the Democrats will offer the folloiwng compromise:

      All Americans should give up their Constitutional rights too so terrorists will be treated equally.”

      Jim Taranto said about the same thing in last Friday’s Best of the Web.

    33. Jack Davis Says:

      If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated, HE WALKS!

      Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a prisoner in U.S. custody for alleged acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians. He was arrested in 2003. He was charged on February 11, 2008, with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission.

      Defendants in criminal cases have the right to a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court laid down a four-part ad hoc balancing test for determining whether the defendant’s speedy trial right has been violated in the case of Barker v. Wingo:

      Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right “attaches” (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed “presumptively prejudicial”, but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.

      Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.

      Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.

      Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.

      In Strunk v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. The Court has held that, since the delayed trial itself is the state action which violates the defendant’s rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.

      In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court guaranteed detainees the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. Now, by extension, anything is possible…including the dismissal of all charges.

      Nice work, Obama! Nice work, Holder!

    34. Shannon Love Says:

      With close experience in both systems I can say that the military system is not only the most likely to provide justice, but the most likely to provide protection for the innocent

      There is a big difference between a technique that works in the military, which is a subsystem of the greater society and a technique that will work in the larger system. The subsystem has the greater system to regulate it while the full system must regulate itself.

      There is also a big difference between courts martial that try offenses against uniformed soldiers and ones that try offenses against illegal combatants. Because there are no criminal procedures nor checks and balances on the battlefield, such courts must rely on their trust in the soldiers who captured and brought forth the accused. Only the honesty, integrity and sense of honor of the officers of the court provide any protection for accused. Institutionally and procedurally they are kangaroo courts.

      More than any part of any human society, the military is driven by necessity. The military does what it must when it has to. It cannot sacrifice its mission for the good of individuals. It cannot let 10 illegal combatants free rather than unjustly imprison one non-combatent. The mission comes first and individuals are sacrificed to that cause.

      In civil life, we do not wish to see individuals sacrificed to the greater mission of the state. The necessary ambiguities of warfare need to stay within the military.

    35. AnnaP Says:

      a military trial wont make any difference in the results of the appeals process, since the 2006 military commissions act still allows a defendant to appeal a military conviction in the civilian courts. And personally, i think that this nitemare scenario of the appeals process ratifying all of bu$hcos’ abuses is more than a little far fetched; but to repeat: that outcome is not the result of a civilian vs a military trial.

      OTOH, i dont necessarily agree with the decision to move these trials to the civilian courts either, because it could very well result in martial law: the repugs might easily get enough unearned political capital out of this to seize the congress in 2010 along with the POTUS in 2012; and if a cheney (romney,giuliani,etc) presidency isnt martial law, then i dont know what is.

    36. Cousin Dave Says:

      Jack, interesting points about the speedy-trial right. We don’t see this come into play too often these days — it seems to be usually more to the defendant’s advantage to delay trial as long as possible. However, if I were KSM, I would definitely be pushing for trial to being ASAP. Two reasons.

      1. KSM’s team already knows that most of the evidence produced against him will be inadmissible (unless Shannon’s conjecture is correct, and the court seriously bends the Constitution to admit it). Therefore, it is to their advantage to proceed quickly, before the prosecution has had a chance to meticulously organize the government’s case. Presumably, a disorganized prosecution, repeatedly introducing evidence and testimony which is subsequently excluded, would result in acquittal, and maybe even a directed verdict.

      2. If one is willing to assume that a Republican President will be inaugurated in January 2013, it is very much to KSM’s advantage that the trial conclude while Obama is still President. Obama’s JD has clearly communicated their weaknesses to KSM’s team. The next President might well be able to ram through a Constitutional amendment putting KSM’s case back in the hands of a military tribunal that will dispose of the matter (and KSM himself) very quickly, and without any of the publicity KSM seeks from an open-court trial.

    37. onparkstreet Says:

      Okay, this is a depressing thread.

      “In civil life, we do not wish to see individuals sacrificed to the greater mission of the state. The necessary ambiguities of warfare need to stay within the military.” – Shannon Love

      Well put.

    38. srp Says:

      One caveat to Shannon’s excellent analysis: Holder claimed that there is “other evidence,” separate from the presumably tainted confessions and so on, with which to convict KSM. Sort of like all those ridiculous Law and Order episodes where the real evidence is thrown out on the exclusionary rule but then the DAs find some backdoor method of proof that avoids the whole “fruit of the poisoned tree” problem.

      I’m skeptical that real life will work out like a Dick Wolf fantasy, but, hey, maybe Holder’s people can pull it off. The whole thing still stinks.

    39. Phd Says:

      An excellent article. The ACLU has been shown to be a political, rather than a civil libertarian entity. If they had given this matter any serious thought, they would have come to the same conclusions in this article. In my opinion, the real purpose of this decision is obvious. The administration was not able to satisfy the radical left of the party’s demand for trials of Bush and Cheney for crimes. Anyone with a brain either in the Congress or the administration with knowledge of the realities involved, took a pass. So, in order to keep the looney left in camp, they decided to let the defense lawyers in these cases put the Bush administration on trial for torture, etc.

    40. Tim Sumner Says:

      Unless the federal courts uphold the basic protections, they will stand Constitutional protections on their head.

      Military Commissions were designed for war criminals, we are at war, “improvements” were signed into law just last month, and Holder will use them to prosecute 5 others; why won’t President Obama use them on the worst of the worst?

    41. Surf Monster Says:

      Tremendously articulate blog…This trial decision has changed the trajectory of the emerging reality of where this country is headed “under” Obama like the gravitational pull of a black hole. And we thought the pounding of public health care down our throats was an all time downer. The zombie Obamamanian masses that still sleep in the fog of Hope and Change and Bush Hitlerization need to wake up, and fast. USA is gonna be USSA when this reality finally hits the ground and craters…and everyone finally wakes up in Toolateville.

    42. SukieTawdry Says:

      President Obama never did care all that much for the Constitution as written. He’s attempting a re-write. And people like Holder are there to help. When considering all the chaos Obama might leave in his wake and the lasting damage he could well do, one perhaps shudders the most at the thought of an Obama Court. Pray for the health of the four conservative Justices and Justice Stevens, pain though he can be at times. Hell, if he felt she were enough of a threat, Obama would put Hillary on the Court just to get her out of his way.

    43. J. Scott Says:

      Tehag said: “Unexpected and delightful analysis. Drop this in your “check back in three years, five years, ten years” directories. I expected the trial to take years. It may not conclude before Obama is defeated in 2012 or resigns.”

      Almost forgot, but I’m curious about your post which posited the notion that Obama might resign before being defeated in 2012…this is an interesting idea and in keeping with his pathological narcissism. I hope you will expand on the idea.

    44. Nancy Harris Says:

      I do not want those TERRORISTS tried in New York City ever!!! This is an insult to all American families. President Obama continues to ignore the wishes of all Americans He is a self indulging man and wait till the next election. Do not Pas any Health Bill either

    45. Mike Says:

      Hey Jack Davis of November 17th, 2009 at 2:46 pm,

      — you are implying that the Obama wrecking crew doesn’t know what they are doing. Please, don’t be so naive. The Obama admin knows precisely what they are doing. Their attempt HERE is to change American jurisprudence. And they will succeed (with the help of their black robes). Its just another feather in their cap, just another step towards the destruction of America. (Or as Saul Alinsky would say, “the rebuilding of America”.)

      Folks, its time to wake up.

    46. Danton Says:

      There was a case years ago,where a pathological murderer murdered a Westchester NY Parkway police officer.
      This piece of human trash,shot the cop, pushed him over and “commandeered” his police cruiser to a suburban side street where he left the young officer to bleed to death.
      This monster’s name was Mengle, I believe, and he waited until nightfall to kill a secretary on her way home from work.
      He killed her,scalped her..yes, he SCALPED her and used her hair,clothing and vehicle to escape to the Niagra Falls region of Canada where he was apprehended.
      Enroute to the USA,in upstate NY he “supposedly” attempted to escape,whereupon the troopers shot him dead as he fled across an open field.
      TO OUR MILITARY:
      If you value our way of life, our freedoms and the “American Way” you’ll take the cue from the troopers.
      Make this monster “disappear”.
      Just like the troopers did to Mr.Mengle.
      Nobody asked any questions then.
      We in New York certainly won’t now.
      Sign me as….a “fed-up NY Firefighter” in favor of FRONTIER JUSTICE!

    47. Danton Says:

      And another thing,dear readers;
      If you trust the gov’t to take over health-care or convict this KSM piece of waste…remember how it botched the conviction of Bill Ayers.
      He’s still walking around trying to tear down this country and subvert all the young children and their teachers.
      The Government will blow this case as bad as Bill Ayers, or OJ Simpson.
      Ayers,OJ,KSM,The 911 Commission!
      THINK!THINK! THINK!

    48. Sheri Says:

      KSM and the other terrorists are unlawful combatants and they don’t belong in civilian courts. The United States has always used military tribunals to try unlawful combatants.

      All these terrorists pleaded guilty to a military tribunal less than a year ago, and they said they wanted to be executed. Obama shouldn’t have interfered with that.

    49. Martin Says:

      I agree with Mike — “The Obama admin knows precisely what they are doing. Their attempt HERE is to change American jurisprudence. And they will succeed (with the help of their black robes). Its just another feather in their cap, just another step towards the destruction of America. (Or as Saul Alinsky would say, ‘the rebuilding of America’.)”

      Remember this quote? “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

      It is all about redistibution of wealth and shreading the Constitution. This, along with all the other massive intrusions into the private sector, is intended to destroy American democracy and usher in American communism.

    50. Brett_McS Says:

      Read out by Mark Levin. That’s the second time, no? Bless us!