Holder has now stated that he’s convinced the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will find him guilty—but if the jury disagrees, the administration is willing to keep holding him indefinitely.
That’s just all kinds of wrong. The whole point of a trial is that if we find someone not guilty, he goes free, not that the government can turn around and hold them anyway.
I fully realize some of the information against Mohammed may be torture-based and therefore inadmissible. Too bad, so sad.
And I realize if he did get off and won his freedom, Obama would be pilloried mercilessly by the right. But so what? He’s already being pilloried for giving him any sort of trial; the people who think he’s the socialist agent of Satan, love child of Malcom X and Muslim sleeper agent aren’t going to vote for him no matter what he does.
And quite simply, this ain’t the way America’s supposed to roll.
The Destin Log is the twice-weekly newspaper devoted to covering the crown jewel of the Emerald Coast.
Archive for the 'Terrorism' Category
AG Eric Holder: Fail!
November 20th, 2009, 2:38 pm by fshermanGood news/bad news
November 16th, 2009, 2:59 pm by fshermanOn trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in court: Good news! Because the American justice system can actually convict terrorists, and the whining of Sarah Palin and others to the contrary, that’s the way it should be done. And if they get off (which is unlikely), that would be tragic, but that’s why it’s the “justice” system, not the “conviction” system.
On the Obama administration’s decision that other terrorists will either go the military commissions route or be held indefinitely: Bad news! As several bloggers have pointed out, it amounts to trying everyone we can convict and finding alternative procedures for everyone else.
It’s that whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing. And the torture-is-a-crime thing too
November 5th, 2009, 10:30 am by fshermanScott Horton details the Italian court decision finding some of the CIA agents involved in kidnapping a suspected Arab terrorist from Italy.
I say Good for Italy. Kidnapping a guy who’s only “suspected” is bad enough, but sending him off for torture in Egypt? That’s a crime.
And let’s face it, if the UK had ever kidnapped American resident who supported the IRA back when it was a terrorist group, we’d have reacted with outrage (or any other American citizen accused of anything).
And it’s not as if the guy was going to walk away scott-free: Italian police were already on the case, but the CIA moved in before they could arrest him, as detailed in The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan, their police and officials are understandably upset about American plans to capture or kill suspected drug kingpins. Honestly, don’t these people realize their country belongs to us now?
Men without a country
October 21st, 2009, 11:57 am by fshermanAccording to Christian Science Monitor, our government is still refusing to let the Uighurs we’ve held at Guantanamo into this country.
A lot of the debate seems to be around whether the courts can compel the executive and legislative branches do it, but that’s a sham: The government shouldn’t have to be compelled. We locked them up (and are still keeping them locked up, though in pleasanter conditions than usual at Gitmo), we acknowledge their innocent and we can’t send them home to China (persecution would be their fate)—I can’t imagine why Congress and the White House are balking.
OK, I can imagine it: There’s a lot of people who will freak out at the thought of Evil Islamofascist Terrorists Loose In America, even if the Uighurs are nothing of the kind. And despite the fact people who thought that way have gotten their butts kicked in the last two elections, Washington still seems obsessed with how they feel.
But that’s still no excuse.
NOW Congress thinks lobbying is bad
October 16th, 2009, 3:28 pm by fshermanOK, not all lobbying, and not all of Congress, just a handful of congressmen and women who are horrified that the Council on American-Islamic Relations has plans to lobby Congress and try to get its people on board as Congressional interns.
When big business does it, it’s fine; when Muslims do it, it hands over America to al-Qaida!
Glenn Greenwald has the story.
Ronald Reagan and Ron Hart
October 14th, 2009, 9:35 am by fshermanRon Hart, in his latest column: “Ronald Reagan, who only ended the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall, did not win a Nobel Peace Prize.”
Now certainly ending the Cold War was an impressive accomplishment—and at a time when conservatives decried Reagan as a naive twit indulging in “appeasement” for not seeing this was a Soviet scam—and he probably deserved it as much as Gorbachev did. But Reagan’s record was hardly that of a peacemaker.
•In El Salvador he supported a dictatorship that murdered priests and nuns for teaching peasants to read (Reagan reported to Congress that the country was doing a great job preserving human rights).
•He greenlighted Saddam’s use of poison gas on Iranian soldiers. Our only reservation was that it might make it harder to condemn the use of chemical weapons when employed by sociopaths who weren’t working for us.
•He sold weapons to Iran. Funny, Hart was blasting Obama in the previous column for being naive about trusting the Iranians would make peace; apparently if Obama were selling them weapons, that would be A-OK. Well, actually not: Obama’s a Democrat, Reagan’s a Republican saint, so they can hardly be judged by the same standard.
•He funded the Afghanistanian mujahedeen as proxy soldiers against the Soviets. The people who later turned into Taliban and gave shelter to al-Qaida.
•He directed the CIA to lie to Congress about Pakistan having a nuclear program because that would have resulted in sanctions and Pakistan was our chief supply route to the mujahedeen. So now we have a nuclear-armed nation in an unstable part of the world, with government ties to Islamic extremists.
All in all, Reagan’s support for peace, democracy and freedom was non-existent any time they weren’t convenient for us.
Hurray for Russ Feingold
October 9th, 2009, 2:46 pm by fshermanThe Wisconsin senator was a staunch defender of civil liberties under Bush, and he isn’t softening under Obama. His criticism of the Patriot Act reauthorization bill is here.
I particularly like his comment about the duties of the Judiciary Committee to be about justice, not just law enforcement: “It’s not the prosecutors’ committee, it’s the Judiciary Committee.”
Oh, joy
October 9th, 2009, 2:39 pm by fshermanDemocratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse: “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize …put[ting] politics above patriotism.”
Now BOTH political parties are playing the Everyone Who Disagrees With Us Is A Terrorist card. Absolutely wonderful. Not.
Preventive detention update
September 25th, 2009, 11:34 am by fshermanMy column this week discussed Obama’s plans to ask Congress for a legal authorization for preventive detention. Now Glenn Greenwald reports that Obama has opted instead to claim the powers Bush asserted to do it without a special law (though with slightly different rationale).
Greenwald’s conclusion is that this is a very small victory, but a victory, preferable to having the concept of preventive detention built into our law.
Tolbert speaks again
September 21st, 2009, 5:53 pm by fshermanSays he’s OK with density limits, but not with the lot sizes.
An attorney representing a Bayou Drive property owner (some investment, some vacation home) comes out against anything that devalues the property (he had more to say, but I screwed up and let wordpress eat my post) and that this decision shouldn’t be based on one man’s subdividing his land.
He asks what the breakdown of letters was, pro/con.
Gallander: Estimates it’s about 50/50
Fred Wyatt of Sixth Street: “in general I’m for this ordinance. We have some older houses across the bayou” and he keeps seeing people come in, pull them down and build three. “The area’s set up more or less for one house per acre.”
I think someone hissed him under their breath as he spoke.
Scott again: If you look at the Tier Three condos, they do more to up the density levels than anything that could happen in Bay Estates with subdividing.
Woman gets up, doesn’t give her name: “Some time ago, we went to a planning and zoning board and we attempted to speak about a particular property” and legal counsel found them “people without standing” because they were more than 300 feet from that property. “I disagree with this. Whenever something happens to any property within a zoning category, and it is allowed then often it is considered justification for another person who wants to do something like what is happening at that meeting. I do not believe that the 300 feet of consideration for whether or not you have standing or should be notified is a very good criterion.”
