Tuesday, 17 November 2009


Ken Berwitz

From Michelle Malkin:

Michelle Malkin 

Finally: Jihadist-enabling lawyer Lynne Stewart ordered to jail

By Michelle Malkin    November 17, 2009 01:47 PM

If there is a shining example of just how dangerous it is for America to give foreign-born jihadists the full panoply of American constitutional rights and all the attendant benefits of a civilian trial, it is Lynne Stewart.

Ive written about her treacherous collaboration with the Muslim terrorist mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman many times over the years most recently in the context of the upcoming KSM trial in NYC.

Well, four years after she was convicted of being the terror messenger girl for Rahman, shes finally going to jail. She had been free pending appeal, raising money for her defense and serving as a dutiful far Left, anti-American apologist. She received a slap on the wrist for her crimes. A federal appeals court has now remanded the decision back to the judge to reconsider the puny punishment:

A disbarred New York lawyer convicted in 2005 on charges of supporting terrorism by helping an imprisoned blind Egyptian cleric smuggle messages to militant followers was ordered to prison by a U.S. federal appeals court that upheld her conviction on Tuesday.

The appeals court also ordered the trial judge to consider lengthening the 28-month prison sentence given to civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 70, saying the judge had declined to consider whether Stewart committed perjury.

Stewart was sentenced in October 2006 to 28 months in prison for helping her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, contact the Islamic Group, which the U.S. government lists as a terrorist organization.

Abdel-Rahman was convicted in 1995 of conspiring to attack U.S. targets in a plot that U.S. prosecutors said included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The twin towers of the World Trade Center were later toppled in the 2001 attacks on the United States carried out by the group al Qaeda.

Prosecutors said messages Stewart passed on for Abdel-Rahman could have incited violence in Egypt.

Evidence in the case against Stewart included a call the lawyer made to a Reuters correspondent in Egypt in which she read a statement issued by the cleric saying he had withdrawn his support for the Islamic Groups ceasefire in Egypt.

In its nearly 200-page ruling, the U.S. second circuit appeals court ordered Stewart to begin serving her sentence.

Stewart had been released on bail pending the appeal. She could have been sentenced to more than 15 years in prison after being convicted on charges of supporting terrorism. Prosecutors had sought up to 30 years.

How many more Lynne Stewarts are out there, ready to aid and abet their jihadi clients on American soil?

"Civil rights lawyer" my ass.

lynne stewart is a USA hating, terrorist abetting sack of shit.  But she was able to stay out of jail and continue working against the USA any way she could, for FOUR YEARS.

There is a lesson in there, that should be learned, relearned by everyone.  But especially by the terrorist-advocate Attorney General eric holder, and his puppeteer in the White House.

But don't bet on it happening. 



Ken Berwitz

I try not to post a lot about keith olbermann, because he is so unfailingly vile and so dishonest that it comes out reading like the same blog over and over again.

But this one needs airing.

Excerpted from a piece by Brad Wilmouth, writing for www.newsbusters.org:

Olbermann: Kristol 'Spitting on Ft. Hood Dead,' O'Reilly Slammed for Calling 'Terrorism'

By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
November 17, 2009 - 12:54 ET

On Monday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, presumably picking up on a posting by the far left ThinkProgress.org -- one of his regular sources of information to attack conservatives -- made the arguably inaccurate claim that FNC political analyst Bill Kristol had on the Thursday, November 12, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, called for Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan to be convicted and executed without trial. After calling the FNC analyst's words "anti-American," and quoting a portion of Kristol's words, Olbermann lectured:

But seriously, the men and women that this man killed however you define him those men and women of the U.S. military, Mr. Kristol, were fighting for the right to trial, due process, justice. Thanks for spitting on the dead of Fort Hood, William Kristol, todays Worst Person in the World.

But a trial is where a criminal normally is "convicted," so the fact that Kristol argued that "they should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death," does not necessarily mean that he was suggesting skipping the trial phase. Additionally, the purpose of Kristol's comment about convicting Hasan was to point out that that part of the process should be a straightforward open-and-shut case since there is so much evidence of his guilt, as the FNC analyst was complaining that Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano made a statement about exacting justice on Hasan being her "number one issue." Napolitano: "And the number one issue, I think right now, is that Major Hasan be brought to justice."

Kristol thought that her highest priority at present should be to determine why the military had ignored suspicious behavior by Hasan so that in future these kinds of attacks within the military might be minimized. Kristol:

The number one, if youre the head of Homeland Security, shouldn't you say the number one priority is figuring out what went wrong? This is what is most disturbing about this. What is disturbing is that it happened, and there were huge failures, I think, within the Army and the intelligence community connecting the dots.

But Olbermann omitted Kristol's reasons for disagreeing with Napolitano's statement -- as did the posting at ThinkProgress.com -- and went on to attack Kristol.

Notably, just last Wednesday, Olbermann included FNC's Bill O'Reilly in Countdown's "Worst Person" segment after O'Reilly argued on his November The O'Reilly Factor show that the Fort Hood massacre should be called "terrorism," although part of Olbermann's complaint was that O'Reilly had jokingly claimed that he had the right to decide whether the event should be called a terrorist act because the popularity of his show on FNC gives him the right. Olbermann:

Our runner-up, Billow: Hes back in fine delusion of grandeur form, having decided that Fort Hood was terrorism. Now, I could read this in the Ted Baxter voice, but then youd get the impression that OReilly was kidding here or being self-deprecating. Nuh-uh.

After showing a clip of O'Reilly and FNC political analyst Alan Colmes in which O'Reilly glibly commented that "I have the highest rated show, Colmes, so ... I can decide, okay?" Olbermann continued: "So Dancing with the Stars drew nearly 16 million viewers last night nearly three times OReillys highest rated show. Does that mean host Tom Bergeron gets three votes on the 'what actually happened' ballot?"

Does it get more pathetic than this?  If so, how?

First we have olbermann's commentary about Bill Kristol.  Kristol said hasan should be "convicted and executed".  How exactly do you get convicted in this country without a trial?  Did olbermann find some point of law that no one else came across in the last 233 years?   Because if he didn't, then his rant about Kristol "spitting on the dead of Fort Hood" by wanting their killer to be convicted and executed, is at ground zero of idiocy.

Then we have olbermann so eager to indulge his pathological hatred of Bill O'Reilly that he picks up on an obviously flip comment ("I have the highest rated show...so...I can decide, ok?") and pretends it was serious which, of course, it was not.  At least he spared us his Ted Baxter imitation, which is not very good and amazingly childish (hey, I just described entire shows of olbermann's, didn't I?).

Personally, I suspect that olbermann's real problem with O'Reilly is that, after going head-up against him for 6 1/2 years, he still is still so far behind in viewership that he can barely see O'Reilly's dust.  God how that must grate on him. 

Here are the latest Neilsen data, drawn from mediabistro.com:

Total Audience:  O'Reilly: 3,324,000, olbermann:  876,000

25-54 year olds:    O'Reilly: 843,000, olbermann:  264,000

I have an idea for olbermann that might boom up his viewership a bit.  Maybe he should stash his Ted Baxter imitation and replace it with Rumpelstiltskin.  Not only will the imitation be better, but he won't even have to change a thing; he can just be himself.


Ken Berwitz

Do you believe in coincidences?

Well, here's an interesting one, as the congress moves towards essentially taking over our health care.  It comes to us from Time Magazine (and numerous other sources:

A U.S. government group recommends that women delay getting regular mammograms until age 50, instead of 40, the age at which the American Cancer Society (ACS) has long advised women to begin screening for breast cancer. The government group issued its new guidelines Monday, citing evidence that the benefits of regular screening do not justify the potential harms in younger women.


The U.S. Preventive Services Task force (USPSTF), funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, published its recommendations in Annals of Internal Medicine; its decision was based on an analysis of existing trials that looked at the impact of mammography on breast-cancer deaths. The task force further recommended that women between ages 50 and 74 get screened every two years instead of annually, and that doctors no longer urge women to conduct monthly breast self-exams, since the practice does not appear to significantly reduce the risk of death from breast cancer. (See how to prevent illness at any age.)


Although the relative benefits of routine breast-cancer screening have been increasingly questioned by many within the cancer community, not everyone agrees that reducing mammography is the answer. "I am appalled and horrified," says Dr. David Dershaw, director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in response to the new guidelines. "There is no doubt that mammography screening in women in their 40s saves lives. To recommend that women abandon that is absolutely horrifying to me."


For its part, the American Cancer Society holds firm to its position recommending yearly mammograms for women beginning at age 40 adamantly stating that it will not modify its guidelines. "We are not changing current recommendations at this time based on our initial review of the information provided by the task force," says Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the ACS.


The government is chafing at the bit to take over health care.  It has promised that at the same time we add 30 - 50 million new patients (depending on who is talking) the quality of health care will stay the same -- even though the same number of doctors will be treating this huge increase of people.  Additionally, it has promised that health care costs will go down - even though the 30 - 50 million increase includes a) a disproportionate number of patients who cannot pay for their care, and b) every patient turned down by insurance companies due to high risk/high cost factors.

And now, just before the Democratic congress uses its majority to force this on us, a government-funded task force tells women that they do not need a mammogram for an additional TEN YEARS -- i.e. none necessary until they are 50 years old -- AND that, after waiting for those ten more years, they need only half as many mammograms thereafter:  one every two years instead of once per year. 

In other words, the government-funded task force is telling us that only a fraction of the mammograms currently recommended by the American Cancer Society are necessary....just in time for government-controlled health care to save the cost of those mammograms.

Asking again:  Do you believe in coincidences?

Oh, and one other question:  Are you still sure that ObamaCare won't have "death panels"?  Think about how many women in their 40's get breast cancer before you answer, please.  Thank you.

Zeke ... the "Panel" consisted of PRIMARY care providers ... ... not a single oncologist (MD specializing in Cancer) among them ... ... wonder if the report was written before the panel ever met. (11/18/09)

Zeke ... This is a classic problem in sampling .... the cost of taking the next sample vs the value of the benefit ... ... .... .... and now we have a gub'mint panel that is sensitive to the cost of everything ... and sensitive to the value of nothing ... .... ... The panel justifies the markedly reduced number of mammographies by saying it eliminates nervous feelings of those who are told that further screening in needed .... Barry ... SOME of those positives are women WITH CANCER ... and ... and ... just HOW easily will women with family histories of cancer be able to get more frequent mammomgraphies . (11/17/09)


Ken Berwitz


This excerpt is for the folks who actually believe that President Obama and the Democratic congress stimulus package has saved or created 600,000 1,000,000 jobs.   It is from an article by Professor and Economist Nouriel Roubini, writing for the New York Daily News:


The worst is yet to come: Unemployed Americans should hunker down for more job losses

Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening. While the official unemployment rate is already 10.2% and another 200,000 jobs were lost in October, when you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers the figure is a whopping 17.5%.

While losing 200,000 jobs per month is better than the 700,000 jobs lost in January, current job losses still average more than the per month rate of 150,000 during the last recession.

Also, remember: The last recession ended in November 2001, but job losses continued for more than a year and half until June of 2003; ditto for the 1990-91 recession.

The long-term picture for workers and families is even worse than current job loss numbers alone would suggest. Now as a way of sharing the pain, many firms are telling their workers to cut hours, take furloughs and accept lower wages. Specifically, that fall in hours worked is equivalent to another 3 million full time jobs lost on top of the 7.5 million jobs formally lost.

Based on my best judgment, it is most likely that the unemployment rate will peak close to 11% and will remain at a very high level for two years or more.

The weakness in labor markets and the sharp fall in labor income ensure a weak recovery of private consumption and an anemic recovery of the economy, and increases the risk of a double dip recession.


If you read the entire article, youll find Roubinis suggestions for what the administration should do.  I have areas of agreement and disagreement with those suggestions.  But the data, and the logic of his projections, seem entirely sound thus ugly and frightening.


I would like to offer a special thanks to the people who buy into the administrations job claims.  Thank you for taking time out from talking about what a long rainstorm were having as Mr. Obama pees on your heads, to read my blog.


Do you still think its raining?


Ken Berwitz

Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh, cry or just shake your head in amazement.

Excerpted from Jack Coleman's piece, written for www.newsbusters.org:

Maddow at Most Orwellian: Murder of Abortion Doctor 'Terrorism' - But Not Ft. Hood Massacre by Jihadist

By Jack Coleman (Bio | Archive)
November 17, 2009 - 17:46 ET


Rachel Maddow wants you to stop referring to Nidal Hasan as a terrorist. Please. You know what short fuses they have.

Responding to Republicans' condemnation of Hasan's actions as terrorism, Maddow furrowed her brow and played devil's advocate, as befitting an honorary member of the al Qaeda Legal Defense Foundation --

MADDOW: Remember this one? Yes, it is the old paint-the-Democrats-as-soft-on-terror routine. But in order to play that politicizing terrorism, anti-Democrat greatest hit, the Fort Hood case has to be terrorism. Regardless of how you feel about the political issue of politicizing terrorism, it's worth asking -- was Fort Hood, technically speaking, terrorism? It's not just a political question. It's not just a judgment call. It's not just a matter of taste. It's a question to which there is an answer, a legal answer. And the charges today didn't include anything related to terrorism.

Terrorism is not just conceptual political jargon. This is a legal term and it has, interestingly, changed over the past few years. In order for something to be legally considered terrorism, do you have to be taking instructions from a terrorist group? Do you have to have some sort of clear political motive behind the violence? Is it about the way that you commit the crime? What sort of weapons that you use in doing? Is it about how many people that you kill in your crime? Is it about the specific type of people you target, whether they're civilian or military?

If you're interested in more than just making political hay out of the Fort Hood case, these are the sort of legitimate questions you would want to ask before labeling this, or any case, an instance of terrorism. Those who are calling this terrorism are making their case in large part because Major Hasan is a Muslim and because he is alleged to have said, God is great, before the shootings. And while it might make for exciting politics to argue that murders committed by religious Muslims are presumptively terrorist acts, those exciting political allegations actually say a lot more about the people making them than they do about the real character of the tragedy at Fort Hood and how we as a country should respond to it.

That's Maddow on her MSNBC show Nov. 12. What a contrast to her first MSNBC broadcast after the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller in late May. Here's how Maddow described it right at the start of her show June 1 (click here for link to YouTube video) --

MADDOW: We begin tonight with another deadly act of domestic terrorism.

As Maddow said this, a photo of Tiller was shown situated above the word TERRORISM in capitalized block letters, lest anyone miss the point.

How perverted does it get? 

Maybe this is why Maddow, who started so strong in viewership, has lost so much of it.  I don't know.  But if it is, you can't say viewers don't have a good reason....


Ken Berwitz

I am posting Lloyd Marcus' top ten reasons that Black people should fear Rush Limbaugh without any comments of my own, pro or con.  You be the judge:

November 17, 2009

Top Ten Reasons Black America Fears Rush Limbaugh

Lloyd Marcus


I am a black man who, since 1993, has been a regular listener of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. I must caution black America. Be afraid, be very afraid of this powerful white man. Regular listening to him could be devastating to the psyche of the 96% of black Americans who voted for Obama. I have compiled the following Top Ten list of reasons why.

10. If you want to believe blacks are eternal victims in America, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

9. If you do not want to take responsibility for your life, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


8. If you are a dead beat looser who voted for Obama in hope of him redistributing what others worked for to you, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


7. If you believe blacks can not achieve without lowered standards and intervention by government and liberals, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


6. If you believe blacks who speak English correctly and are self sufficient are traitors, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


5. If you believe black liberal democrats (Sharpton, Jackson, Waters & Co.) are your friends rather than your slave masters, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


4. If you do not believe self respect, pride and true self esteem comes from personal achievement, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


3. If you want to hate your country and believe it is the greatest source of evil in the world, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


2. If you want to believe rich white racist Republicans are burning the midnight oil thinking of ways to keep black America down, do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.


And the number one reason black America should fear regularly listening to Rush Limbaugh; they will become ditto heads.


Lloyd Marcus (black) Unhyphenated American


Ken Berwitz


Bret Stephens, writing for the Wall Street Journal, has some pretty strong words about the idiocy of a civil trial for khalid sheikh mohammed and his 9/11 accomplices.


But the most important part of his article, to me anyway, is its highly illuminating and highly troubling compendium of what happens when these subhuman scumbags are tried in civil courts.


Here it is.  See if you agree: 

Two Ground Zeroes

A site of mourning became a symbol of defiance and then a metaphor for incompetence.



I have long thought it would be a good idea to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his accomplices to lower Manhattan. In my concept, the men would be taken by helicopter to a height of about 1,000 feet over Ground Zero and pushed out the door, so that they, too, could experience what so many of their victims did in the awful final flickering seconds of their lives.


And since al Qaeda intended the attacks as a spectacle for the benefit of its would-be recruits, I'd give al Jazeera the exclusive TV rights.


This, however, is not Eric Holder's concept. In announcing his decision last week to send KSM and four other defendants to stand trial for their crimes in a federal courthouse just a few blocks from Ground Zero, the attorney general said the trial would offer the bereaved of 9/11 "the opportunity to see the alleged plotters of those attacks held accountable in court," adding that he was "confident" the legal system would "rise to that challenge."


We'll see about that.


There are a few ways to predict the course of the trials. One is to consult what al Qaeda itself advises its members to do in the event that they are brought before a judge. "At the beginning of the trial . . . the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge," goes a line in what is known as the Manchester Document, a 180-page al Qaeda how-to obtained by British police in 2000.


This is, of course, a prescription for lying, though it shouldn't be a tough sell with the jury given that KSM was in fact waterboarded by the CIA some 183 times. If anything, it provides a perfect opening for him to turn the tables on his accusers and put the U.S. government on trial, while embellishing any which way he pleases. No small number of potential New York City jurors would find KSM a more credible witness than any number of Bush administration officialsthink Alberto Gonzales or Dick Cheneywho might be called to the stand.

A second way to predict how the trials might go is to look back at the trial of al Qaeda's Zacarias Moussaoui, often described as the "20th hijacker." Moussaoui's case has been cited by defenders of Mr. Holder's decision as an example of how civilian courts have succeeded in dealing with some of the most hardened terrorists.


Really? Moussaoui was arrested in August 2001, and indicted that December. It would take until May 2006 before a jury would sentence him to life in prison, a single juror having spared him a death sentence. Assuming a similar time frame for the KSM trials, that means we can expect verdicts in 2015. That's a long time to keep lower Manhattan in a perpetual state of red alert.


Yet the Moussaoui trial wasn't merely interminable. It was also incompetent. Moussaoui did everything he could to turn it into a circus, at various times entering contradictory pleas on the view, as he put it, that "you're allowed to lie for jihad." Lawyers for the government were repeatedly accused of malfeasance, leading Judge Leonie Brinkema to observe at one point that "I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses." The judge herself came close to dismissing the entire case, even as the Fourth Circuit had to step in to reverse one of her rulings.


And this was a comparatively clean case, unlike, say, those of El Sayyid Nosair, acquitted in 1991 of the murder of Jewish fanatic Meir Kahane; or of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh at whose trial for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing critical intelligence information was disclosed that gave Osama bin Laden clues as to what the U.S. knew about his network.


The third way to consider the trials is to look at Ground Zero itself. After eight years of deliberation, planning, money and effort, what have we got? The picture (below) is the answer.



Associated Press

Ground Zero: the last thing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should see. 

Let me be more precise. After eight years in which the views and interests of, inter alia, the Port Authority, NYPD, MTA and EPA, the several governors of New York and New Jersey, lease-holder Larry Silverstein, various star architects, the insurance companies, contractors, unions and lawyers, the families of the bereaved, their self-appointed spokespersons, the residents of lower Manhattan and, yes, even the fish of the Hudson river have all been duly consulted and considered, this is what we've got: a site of mourning turned into a symbol of defiance turned into a metaphor of American incompetenceof things not going forward. It is, in short, the story of our decade.


Barack Obama, energetic and smart, was elected largely to change all that. But the thrust of his presidency so far has been in the direction of bloated government, deficits and health-care bills; paralysis over Afghanistan and Iran; the convulsions over Gitmo and the CIA torture memos. And now this: An effort to demonstrate the purity of our methods and motives that is destined, as all these things have been, to wind up as the legal equivalent of Ground Zero. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for whom no real justice will ever be meted, understood his targets well.

There are two things that trouble me about this piece:  One is Mr. Stephens' comment about dropping the terrorists from an airplane which, though it may sound great, really does put us in the same league with them.  I understand that Stephens didn't mean it literally, but I wish he hadn't said it at all.  And the other is the seemingly uncorrectable BS that khalid sheikh mohammed was waterboarded 183 times.  He was not.  mohammed himself said he was waterboarded 5-8 times.  And common sense tells me that if he was lying about the number, he would be overstating rather than understating it.

Those two things aside, however, Bret Stephens has written a terrific explanation of what is wrong about trying terrorists in civil court. 

I wonder what Obama & Co. will do when the trial blows up in their faces.  Will they just lie about what is happening, like they lie about so many other things, such as transparency in government, saving and creating jobs, etc.? 

Hey, why not?   Though the number appears to rapidly be dwindling, there are still plenty of people - especially among our wonderful "neutral" media - perfectly willing to smell whatever they are shoveling.


Ken Berwitz


Unlike so many others in our wonderful neutral media, Peter Collier, writing for www.frontpagemag.com, understands the real implications of giving khalid sheikh mohammed and his fellow 9/11 terrorist-murder scumbags a civil trial in New York City, instead of putting them before a military tribunal.


Here is Mr. Colliers piece:

Presumed Guilty by Peter Collier

Posted by Peter Collier on Nov 16th, 2009

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace gave Jack Reed, Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, an opportunity to defend the decision to give KSM a civilian trial in New York. After enumerating the many injuries this could cause the country, Wallace asked Reed for one advantage Attorney General Holders decision might bring. Reed, well known as a talking head for the White House, said that such a trial will stand as a symbol in the world of something different than what the terrorists represent.

That this comment comes shortly after the President bowed deeply to the Japanese emperor (an obeisance even more groveling than the one he lied about having offered Saudi King Abdullah this past spring) is, as my former Marxist friends used to say, no accident. This administration is obsessed with American guiltso ambivalent about our countrys intrinsic meaning that it feels it must invent a new symbolism to convince the rest of the world that we are a good and decent nation. Other countries may be on the fence about whether were all that different from the terrorists, the logic of Reeds comment seemed to suggest, so we must have a show trial to convince them that we are.

But while Reed smugly congratulates the administration for setting up a global civics lesson, KSM must be licking his chops and thanking Allah that nobody listened to him when he demanded to be put to death. Here he has an opportunity, courtesy of the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., no less, to further the destruction he caused on 9/11. That attack hit buildings and bodies; the one he will soon be able to launch from a New York courtroom could affect American security even more profoundly since it will be directed at all the safeguards put into effect in the eight years since the first attack. In this regard, Holder has given KSM the opportunity to use one of the time honored techniques of the homicide bomber: set off one explosion, and then, when responders rush in to deal with the carnage, set off another that will claim an even larger number of victims.

Sen. Reed, one of those for whom 9/10 appears to be Groundhog Day, blithely dismissed the downside, but it will surely be America, as much or more than KSM himself, that will be on trial when this legal circus opens its big tent. Sources and methods of intelligence gathering, cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies, rendition, cruel and unusual incarceration, and most of all TORTURE  will dominate the proceedings. The rest of the world will not get a lesson about Americas constitutional glories, but a confirmation of its worst suspicions that we are and always have been a black ops nation.

KSM will get a chance to show the blood on the Great Satans hands. And Eric Holder and his President will get the Truth Commission they have wanted since the election but were afraid to seek through the normal political process. In this regard, at least, the trial will be win/win.

Is Peter Collier correct?  If not, Id love someone to explain why, because he sure makes sense to me.


I find myself especially drawn to the comparison Collier makes between giving mohammed and his accomplices civil trials and how a homicide bomber operates (which Ive put in bold print).  


Simply stated, this decision is nuts. 


-It hands terrorist scumbags exactly the forum theyve dreamed about;


-It does exactly nothing to benefit the United States;


-The legal strategies sure to be used on behalf of these scumbags will give our enemies a prolonged seminar on how we try to defend ourselves against terrorism.  This treasure trove of intelligence will be used not only for daily propaganda against the US, but also to strategize future terrorist attacks;


-And last but certainly not least there is a damn good chance that, given the evidence which is and is not admissible in a civil trial, it could result in mohammed and the rest of this subhuman scum walking free.


As grotesque as it may seem, Mr. Collier shows us that some of the same reasoning which causes him (and me, and, I hope, you) to be against trying mohammed and his buddies in a civil court, is reasoning that causes Barack Obama to be for it.


What a great triumph for the terrorist-advocate Attorney General, eric holder.and for his puppeteer in the White House.

Zeke .... or .... maybe Mr Eric Holder will draft presidential pardons for the terrorists .... just like he did for Marc Rich .... .... or maybe Mr Eric Holder will just not prosecute the terrorists, in a manner similar to the New Black Panthers voter intimidation default conviction .... .... or maybe Mr Eric Holder will draft presidential pardons for the terrorists, just like he did for unrepentant convicted FALN assassins. (11/17/09)


free` Since the law firm that holder used to work for failed to get the terrorists civilian trials [yes the law firm holder worked for defended the Gitmo terrorists free of charge] it only makes sense now that holder is the AG that he would do what he wasn't able to do as a lawyer. (11/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

From Fox News we have this:

Holder Downplays Concerns Over War-Time Prisoners Entering Civilian Court

by  FOXNews.com

Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday stood by his decision to send five alleged Sept. 11 conspirators to New York for trial, saying his team carefully considered the potential downsides of taking the case out of the military commission system but ultimately determined federal court was the best option. 

Despite growing concerns that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in civilian court triggers a host of complications for the prosecution, Holder said he's confident the cases will be "successful." 

"We looked at a variety of things -- about the questions of admissibility of evidence ... what problems we might have with regard to any witnesses," Holder said. "I mean the whole variety of things that we considered in making those judgments." 

But some lawmakers and analysts were not so convinced Holder's case is airtight. 

Unlike military courts, civilian courts require warrants for evidence -- warrants which are not typically obtained on the battlefield. Civilian courts also have much stricter rules for hearsay than military courts. Plus any defendants who were not read their Miranda rights could raise that as an issue. 

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said a conviction is "not automatic." 

"Odds are that he will be convicted of something but in the federal courts, it's the luck of draw as to what judge you get," King told Fox News. "And you could get a judge who would say because he was arrested without a warrant, because he was not read his Miranda rights, because he was held seven years without a trial, all of this is a terrible injustice and therefore I'm going to dismiss the charges. I doubt any judge would do that, but it's going to make it more difficult to get the conviction." 

Another obvious pitfall for the Justice Department would be allegations of torture from the defendants' counsel. Mohammed's history of being waterboarded is well-documented. Though Bush administration officials have defended the practice as being useful in extracting critical information, waterboarding has since been banned and is considered torture by some lawmakers. 

Charles Stimson, a former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainees, said these allegations could make the prosecution's case quite fragile. 

"If any of these statements ... get thrown out because of this argument that they were tortured and that nothing that came out of their mouths can be believed, that the whole case is tainted, it's a house of cards," he said. 

Others argue that the trial just gives Mohammed the platform he wanted all along. Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, told a local radio station Tuesday he's concerned the trial will serve as a "propaganda" tool for the defendant. 

The whole process could take years, and the inevitable involvement of classified information muddies things further. 

"The issues around classified information are enormously complicated and can occupy sometimes years of litigation before a case goes to trial to figure out what's going to be available to whom," said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution.

Fox News' Shannon Bream contributed to this report

Can this man possibly be our Attorney General?

I'm just overcome with bliss that he looked at all those things before making his judgment.  But do you any reason that he made the judgment?  Do you see any definition of what "successful" means? 

The only thing I've read so far is that holder thinks it's peachy-keen if we put khalid sheikh mohammed and his four pals in the middle of Manhattan, so the world can watch them perform in open court.  He thinks this is a good thing.

Was it a good thing when this was done for zacarias moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker"?   Well, let's see:  he was indicted on December 11, 2001, and sentenced on May 4, 2006.  

That, folks, was four and a half years.  Four and a half years of moussaoui lying and propagandizing in open court, to the delight of our enemies around the world.  And he was the guy who didn't even participate in the hijacking. 

By contrast, khalid sheikh mohammed is accused of being the architect of 9/11.  He wasn't one of the saps that were sent to kill themselves, he was one of the key "men" doing the sending;  one of the heads of the snake. So this trial is far more complicated, thus has the potential to last far longer than moussaoui's.

I can just imagine eric holder's response to this:  "Propaganda-fest for our enemies?  What propaganda-fest?  What enemies?" 

Will the federal government kick in the cost of security for mohammed and his four co-conspirators when they are transported to the courtroom each day, sit in open court, and then are transported back to a jail in the middle of New York City?

Hey, why not?  This is the Obama administration, so it's just money.  Heck, you can print as much as you want. 

"Debt?  What debt?"


Ken Berwitz

Remember the massive street protests in Iran, after its demonstrably bogus "election" that reinstalled mahmoud ahmadinejad to power?

Remember President Obama looking the other way and not speaking up in support of them (hey, I can't upset those nice folks in power, can I?  If I do they might not want to talk with me...).

Well here, via the Associated Press, is what happened to some of the folks Mr. Obama left twisting in the wind:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has sentenced five people to death over the unrest that followed the country's disputed June presidential election, state television reported Tuesday.

At least three others caught up in the turmoil have received death sentences previously.

Iran began a mass trial in August of prominent opposition figures and activists, accusing them of a range of charges from rioting to spying and plotting what authorities have called a "soft revolution" to topple the country's Islamic rulers.

The opposition led massive street protests and clashed with security forces in the weeks following the disputed June 12 presidential election. The opposition claimed fraud after election authorities declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of a second term and their anger unleashed the most serious internal unrest in Iran in the 30 years since the Islamic Revolution.

A Justice Department statement said the five sentenced to death were members of "terrorist and armed opposition groups," state television reported. The statement said the courts have sentenced a total of 89 defendants since the process began and 81 of them got prison terms ranging from six months up to 15 years.

"So far, 89 of defendants were tried and based on their cases, death sentences were issued for five of them," the statement said.

It said the 81 people sentenced to prison terms were charged with a range of offenses from security violations, agitating against the Islamic Republic, violating law and order, damaging public and private property, and assaulting civilians and security forces.

What a proud moment for President Obama.  What a proud moment for Iran. 

Did you know that, albeit on a far smaller scale, there were protests in Iran just last week?  Did you know that the demonstrators chanted the rough equivalent of "President Obama, you're with us or you're against us"?  And did you know that President Obama again turned away?

Obviously, ahmadinejad and the mullahs who pull his strings - the ones who lie to the world every day as they prepare a nuclear weapon that can, in ahmadinejad's own words, "wipe Israel off the face of the map" - are far more important than any democratic movement.

How dare those students embarrass Barack Obama!   Who do they think they are, anyway?

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!