I know it’s Erick Erickson, so I shouldn’t really expect much, but still, this causes tremors in my cerebellum:
Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.
In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.
At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime. At worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet again becomes a target for terrorists.* We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.
First of all, the actual best case scenario would be a fairish trial that leads to a conviction with a nice interminable sentence in the clinky. And it’s not beyond the bounds of imagination that we could get something close to that (with the glaring caveat being that whole prior torture thingy, which the court will kind of have to pretend never happened – bygones and all that).
That obvious point aside, I wanted to focus on the bizarre concern about the proceedings devolving into a show trial. The guy is ostensibly concerned that such a show trial would betray American ideals, besmirch our good image and put us in the company of “kleptocratic** totalitarian regimes.” But his solution is…indefinite detention without any form of trial, complete with as much torture as we’re inclined to dish out.
Which totally wouldn’t stain our image, trample on our supposed principles and cause us to resemble despotic regimes.
Moran.
Addenda:
*What does he mean “again”? Was there some consensus amongst terrorists that New York had immunity after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?
**Of what signficance is ”kleptocratic” in that sentence. Are kleptocratic totalitarian regimes known for their penchant for show trials above other totalitarian regimes? Why?)
November 13, 2009 at 9:35 am
Of what signficance is ”kleptocratic” in that sentence.
It looks cool, it’s a hip polisci term, and it has that kool Amerikan K that emphasizes Obama’s inherently socialistically totalitarian ooga-booga dictator ambiance.
Everyone knows that black men secretly want to rule the world. Look at Michael Steele.
November 13, 2009 at 9:42 am
‘kleptocracies’ go with, you know, 3rd world dictatorships like Robert Mugabe’s and Idi Amin’s and well, you GET THE IDEA.
November 13, 2009 at 10:19 am
Anthrax attacks? Although I specifically remember the announcements over the company PA in my Manhattan offices ordering us to NOT open mail that day or we may DIE, I’m pretty sure that I heard somewhere that Bush was the greatest president EVAH for not allowing another terrorist attack since 9-11. That means the anthrax attacks must never have happened and my mind must have created all those memories. Apparently my mind also created a reference to such attacks in your post. I apologize for that. Feel free to delete that reference.
November 13, 2009 at 12:42 pm
yeah that and that the DFHs were calling ‘inside job’ from day 1, and even the FBI basically now admits that, even if they got some patsy who is now conveniently dead to blame it upon withal.
November 13, 2009 at 10:54 am
There is a distinct possibility that this will turn out to a “show trial,” but certainly not of the sort imagined by Erick-Erick’s tiny little brain. I’m talking the sort that shuffles these creeps off to the gas chamber with minimal delay.
November 14, 2009 at 3:58 am
a la Saddam. We try him for a crime he committed JUST BEFORE we supported him, so that our later support (and tacit approval) is excluded from evidence, and find a reason to kill him ASAP.
et voila. clean hands.
November 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I guess Erick wants a return to the glorious days of Judge Roy Bean, the Law West of the Pecos: “Do you have anything to say in your defense before this court finds you guilty?”
November 13, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Of what signficance is ”kleptocratic” in that sentence.
“Kleptocratic” == “not a worshipper of A*n R*nd” == “liberal”. It’s an all-purpose way to talk about anyone who doesn’t think he’s John Galt.
November 13, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Ahhh. I think that’s it.
November 13, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“Of what signficance is ”kleptocratic” in that sentence?”
Because wingnuts commentators are required to squeeze 10 lbs of shit-words into every 5 lb word-sack or else their senile, aged followers will toddle off to watch the “Matlock” marathon on TVLand.
November 13, 2009 at 2:41 pm
The rules committee is going to give partial credit for that.
November 13, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Hey Al! How’s business at the Gem?
November 14, 2009 at 3:56 am
that Obama, he’s stealing all their thunder.
November 13, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Erick Erickson abhores show trials, or trials of any kind because any trial could potentially become too “showy” for his taste (He especially despises when those damned “defense” lawyers are allowed to do showy things like cross examine witnesses and present evidence that helps their “case.” Only totalitarian kleptocracies do those types of things).
You see, it makes perfect sense…. if there are no trials, then there certainly can’t be show trials!
November 13, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Well there goes our whigs and ruffly black dresses.
November 13, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I suppose there’l be no opening musical number now.
November 13, 2009 at 9:57 pm
So, giving a defendant “all the rights afforded an American citizen” results in a show trial? I’m not sure I follow this line of reasoning.
November 13, 2009 at 11:51 pm
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalianable rights. Anh, fuck that. Strike it so it says, that all Americans are created equal. I’m sure John Adams didn’t mean to purposefully defend those British Soldiers right to habeus corpus as old as the Magna Carta, when the people would have just assumed there be no trial. The King can’t just throw you down a hole into a dungeon. Ask Ann Bolyn why.
November 14, 2009 at 6:52 am
Some days you make my day, Kleber. I am Fed-X-ing you a ruffly black judge’s robe and a curly white wig.
Well, in my imagination, I am.
Hope you enjoy them.
November 15, 2009 at 9:02 pm
You are a kind and considerate Gentleman of letters.
November 14, 2009 at 3:54 am
devolve into a show trial??
That would assume Gitmo was an advanced, evolved response, as opposed to the devolution of our legal system that Gitmo still IS.
November 14, 2009 at 5:08 am
My friends, the Debate™ over the Issue™ of how to handle the enemy combatants in Guantanamo is being increasingly Polarized™. One side says we should prosecute them through the due process of the law, and grant them all the rights and privileges that an ordinary American citizen would have. Another side says we should simply detain them indefinitely, waterboard them, and nuke their homelands.
One thing is clear: what this Debate™ needs is an Honest Broker™, and who better to be the Honest Broker™ than Yours Truly™?
Why is there a Debate™ at all? Well, the Debate™ is a direct result of the onslaught of Moral Relativism™. America has strayed too far from its Judeo-Christian Roots™, to the point that Moral Certainties™ have become a confusing array of Competing Agendas™ and differing Value Systems™.
America is Ill™, and it is high time we nurse America back to Moral Health™.
– bi
November 14, 2009 at 6:53 am
I recommend therapeutic stonings to cleanse the public’s mass soul.
November 14, 2009 at 11:54 pm
I was thinking along the lines of therapeutic enemas to cleanse the public’s soul, but perhaps the concepts could work in tandem.
November 14, 2009 at 11:19 am
Er, I think what he means “again” is:
9/11! [transl: STFU DFHs!]
PS I think your interpretation is confused – Erickson isn’t concerned that there might be a show trieal – he really does think a show trial fit for a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime would be best! And I also note he only gave us “at best” and “at worse” scenarios. A Freudian slip? He doesn’t think 9/11 again would be all that bad? It *could* delay that nasty health care reform and energize the wingnut revolutionaries! Would the real “at worst” scenario explode our brains if we heard it, or doesn’t Erickson want to say what he really thinks? Could it be convictions in fairish trials, terrorists put behind bars, a pacified middle east, and an Obama landslide reelection in 2012?
November 14, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Could it be convictions in fairish trials, terrorists put behind bars, a pacified middle east, and an Obama landslide reelection in 2012?”
Stop it! Stop it! You’re scaring the cretins!
November 16, 2009 at 9:01 am
Er, I think what he means “again” is: 9/11!
Yes, but NY has not ceased being a target. There have been numerous foiled plots, and other plots not undertaken, since 9/11 with NY as the target.
If he means attacked again, fine. But target status hasn’t changed to my knowledge.
November 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm
btw guys, ken (by request only) is now available. this is of interest to this community: http://holyfuckingshit40000.blogspot.com/2009/11/ken-by-request-only-1976.html
November 14, 2009 at 8:11 pm
[...] die happy Posted by The Editors under Uncategorized Leave a Comment Legendary catch by mm. Hurry, hurry. And, yes, it’s as good as you knew it would be. [...]
November 21, 2009 at 6:58 am
kleptocracy, an ideology championed by people who derive most of their private income from a public g.s.a. number, furthered on by shills paid from the same pool of transferred wealth, enshrined into law with a ‘donation’ to elected officials