You can't control your stalking. If you don't like the thread, then don't post comments on it instead of trying to derail the thread. BTW, you need to look at your last 2000+ posts if you want to see stupid crap.
You need to consider your 50-some posts and realize that getting banned here is 1) a result of being vastly stupid, and 2) hard on one's post count.
Liberalism's biggest hero, FDR, had no problem putting a group of German agents who infiltrated into the US during WW II on trial before a military commission and executing them a week later. Of course, FDR also had no qualms about putting Japanese Americans into concentration camps. It seems to me isolated acts of terrorism, like the Washington snipers or that Ft. Hood guy, can properly be tried in civilian courts. Acts that are part of a larger conspiracy against the country, whether by other countries or non-state actors, can and generally should be tried before military commissions. Terrorist cases often present threats of intimidation or retribution against judges, prosecutors and juries, which is an unfair burden. Those like Holder who say we are demonstrating faith in our court system are being disingenuous to a huge degree. They are relying on the notoriety of these cases and the facts that the judges and juries already have enormous amounts of highly prejudicial information, plus the fact that any judge who dismissed these cases or acquitted them would have to move to Iran. They are not really taking the normal risk of a criminal trial, which is that the accused might go free. In this case, they are being doubly disingenuous because in a normal case there would be a high probablility that a federal court would not entertain charges against a defendant who had been subjected to long-term torture by federal authorities. There is another wrinkle here. Putting these cases before a federal court could be Obama's backdoor way of forcing prosecution of the agents who interrogated these defendants. If they can be tried in a federal court, then their interrogation becomes a matter within that court's jurisdiction, and a liberal federal judge in NYC could well refer it to Justice with a demand for prosecution. That would let Obama satisfy his nutcase base yet plead to the public he had no choice.
Travesty in New York By Charles Krauthammer WASHINGTON -- For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic. And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM. Receive news alerts Sign Up Charles Krauthammer RealClearPolitics America director self-proclaimed architect Attorney General United States Washington New York Khalid Sheik Mohammed Michael Mukasey Eric Holder Obama administration media capital [+] More September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America. So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign. Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place. Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning. Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods. That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered." Finally, there's the moral logic. It's not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal. By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal. What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times? By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal? Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog. Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice. Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime. Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson. letters@charleskrauthammer.com Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/20/travesty_in_new_york_99224.html at November 20, 2009 - 02:25:03 PM CST
Don't you think Obama and Holder want to BLAME Bush?... Barf up old stories just before an election... you know, to remind the voters how bad the Repubs were?