baldilocks

Facts am Hard

Today's column by Leonard Pitts isn't the dumbest thing I've ever read, but I can't think of what is.

Lots of people are outraged by the Obama Administration decision to remove Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, et al from the military tribunal system and try the admitted terrorists before a federal civilian court but columnist Leonard Pitts is all for the decision and he chastises those who are against the decision as having an ulterior motive for the criticism:

Indeed, if critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try him and his terrorist confederates in a New York City courtroom would be honest with themselves, they'd admit that this is what drives their condemnation, not questions of security, fears of acquittal or other obfuscatory concerns they've raised.

No, the baseline here is the understandable belief that these thugs, these gangsters of Islam, have no right to a trial, that the American legal system, with all its protections for the accused, all its rights and procedures and niceties, is more than they deserve.

Is Mr. Pitts familiar with how our legal system works? Has he heard of the terms ‘jurisdiction,’ ‘custody,’ ‘evidence?’ Is he familiar with Miranda?   Does he know anything about war and battlefields?  Does he know anything about intelligence? 

Okay, forget I asked that last question.  And you will forget in a few seconds. 

In order to bolster his position that KSM and friends should be removed from the military tribunal system and tried by a civilian system, Pitts says this:

It's worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court. After burning away 11 million lives, the leaders of the Nazi regime found themselves facing not summary execution, but a trial before a military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

So let me see if I can follow Pitts’chain of “logic.”  We don’t want the terrorist moved from military justice system to a civilian one because what we really want is to have them executed without a trial.  But we should stop criticizing the move from a military justice system to a civilian one because even the perpetrators of the Holocaust were subject to military justice.

Too long?  Let me try again.

"Don’t give them Military Justice because I know that you really don’t want have a trial and the Nazis got Military Justice but that was okay."

Better?

No, my head does not hurt--at least not today.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

A Different Kind of Ice Cream

There use to be a mosque near my home, but the adherents have since move their digs to Crenshaw Boulevard. 

The congregants were all black and but I’m not sure if they were Black Muslims (Explanation: back in the day, the distinction “Black Muslim” indicated that the persons under discussion belonged to the Nation of Islam and therefore subscribed to the ideology set forth by Elijah Muhammad—an ideology considered an anathema to other Muslims.  These days, the term merely means a Muslim who is black, that is, they may be NOI adherents or they may not be. I make the distinction to indicate that I did not see anything other than black people coming and going from that mosque, but that's not a surprising thing in South Central Los Angeles and, therefore, no indication of whether the mosque belonged to NOI or not.)

A number of years ago, four perhaps, something occurred that, up until a few weeks ago, I've thought about every now and then.  However, since the terror attack on Fort Hood and the revelations regarding the prior behavior of its perpetrator, I have been thinking of that four-year-old something nearly every day.

At midday, I was in the back of the house in my office—blogging, of course.  At some point, a noise entered my consciousness.  It was a voice, a tinned one and, as I listened I became aware of three things: that the voice was male, that it was coming out of a bullhorn and that it was repeating the same phrase over and over again.  However, I could not make out the words at first.

As the volume decreased, I originally thought that the origin of the voice had moved on.  But it had only gone around the block a few times.  Finally, the origin of the voice came back around on my street and, apparently, the driver decided to park for a few minutes almost directly in front of my house. The unintelligible phrase was being repeated once more.  And once again.

Finally I got up from in front of my computer, went to the front of the house, peered through the blinds of the large picture window in the living room and…froze.

The voice was coming from speakers attached to the type of truck that is sometimes used by ice cream vendors. The truck was spotlessly clean and gleaming white except for the design on the side: the huge blood-red star-and-crescent symbol of Islam.

The occupant had been exhorting the residents of this neighborhood using a two-sentence phrase, most of which I have blocked out of my memory.  But I do remember one part and, really, it’s the only relevant part.  The occupant was advising us to…

“Embrace Islam.” 

By the time I gained the presence of mind to grab a camera, the gleaming white truck had moved on.  I haven't seen it since.

From the time that it came to light the Major Nidal Malik Hasan basically warned the FBI and the Army of what he was--if not of what he was about to do—I’ve been thinking of that “ice cream” truck and what that particular vendor was selling.  Aren't Jihadis required to warn their infidel foes and invite them to convert before any attack?

“Embrace Islam,” he said.  Left unspoken was the alternative.

UPDATE: Robert Spencer says that it's called a dawah truck.

UPDATE:  Welcome, AboveTopSecret.com denizens.  Two things: 1) Those who know me know that I don't believe in subtlety except as a writing style and 2) I'm not a guy.

Tale of The Tigers: Not a Romance Novel

And Little Miss Attila will prove it! Here's the synopsis:

At a southwestern university, a young man and a young woman do something that’s done every day: they fall in love. There’s just one thing--he’s white and she’s black.

Set in the early 1990s, Tale of the Tigers tells the story of how the tables have turned on race relations and sexual jealousy and of how two young Americans weather the storm of that heritage in the post-Civil Rights Era.

Lindsay Graham TKOs Eric Holder

Everyone has it so I might as well post it--especially since it's so nicely done by Senator Graham.

Stacy McCain reminds us why the senator know what he's talking about:

Graham decided to join the United States Air Force in 1982, and served on active duty until 1988. Following his departure he stayed in the military, joining the South Carolina Air National Guard and the U.S. Air Force Reserves. During the Gulf War, he was recalled to active duty, serving as a Judge Advocate at McEntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina, where he helped brief departing pilots on the laws of war.

The thing is, the points which Senator Graham makes are those which could be figured out by almost anyone who is familiar with the military and with cop/lawyer TV shows. And, trust me, AG Holder knows all of this as well. He just hasn't gotten around to making his BS flow smoothly on the subject, especially in the face of someone as knowledgeable on the topic and as skillful a cross-examiner as our friend Grahamnesty appears to be.

But it's just talk. A little less conversation...

Intent

A symptom of stupidity?

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention.

Or is it merely a window into viewing intent?  My premise on asking the last question is this:  Obama wants to destroy this country and, to that end, destroy or weaken the things which make this country great.  Two things which make this country great-- its philosophy of jurisprudence and its due process --will be weakened by the venue alone of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends.  So President Obama can be as careless about commenting on the prospective outcome of the trial as he is about every other item that is part of American Exceptionalism. 

He does, however, think everyone else is stupid, as does Attorney General Eric Holder.  That’s why the two keep assuring the public that these terrorists will be "convicted and get the death penalty." That’s why the AG says irrelevant things about “not being scared” when questioned about the venue decision before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The two play on the emotions of the public but never address what will happen as a result of this trial; they think that all the public cares about is hanging these terrorists.  (Secretary Clinton was dead-on message yesterday.)  They think that the outcome is what matters to us and that we don’t care how the guilty/death penalty destination is reached, that we don't care about the process.  But in reality this is how they feel—all Leftists believe in outcome-based decision making.   (Need an example? The Community Reinvestment Act.)  The problem with outcome-based decision making is that it almost always produces an outcome not foreseen and one which is almost always detrimental--usual inadvertently.

In this case, however, the verdict of a civilian court trial of KSM et al. will not matter a whit to President Obama and Attorney General Holder.  If the trial remains in civilian court and it begins, their intended destination will have already been reached. 

As a result of such a trial, all the rules to which courts and, therefore, judges and lawyers previously adhered will be openly thrown out of the window.  Forget about the terrorists for a second; I’m talking about the rules as they apply to you and to me.  Venues changed at whim; double jeopardy; anonymous accusers--you name it.  Precedent is being set and the name of that precedent is…chaos.  Nothing will kill an organization—or a nation—faster.

Whether the defendants are found guilty or innocent not guilty, we are in grave danger, both from those who openly hate what this country stands for and those who secretly do.

The ensuing chaos is the detrimental outcome intended and it's not such a secret anymore.

UPDATE: Holder admits that there's no real reason to change the KSM trial venue, no legal one, that is:

I have thought about that possibility [of an acquittal]. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…

It will be a show trial--a stab in the heart of the legal tradition in this country.

And where would KSM go if he is acquitted and is unable to settle into a nice loft in Lower Manhattan? Back to Afghanistan/Pakistan, no doubt, where it all began and where he can train the next generation of Soldiers of Allah using supplies and facilities bought with Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Army pay.

Lovely.

 

Malevolent Outcomes

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit puts up a video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being interviewed by David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday morning and notes that she appears to at least give lip service to agreeing with the Obama Administration’s decision to try admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his cohorts in civilian federal court--in a venue located within walking distance of the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood.  Not really a surprise.

But Secretary Clinton said something which I think needs to be highlighted.  Here’s a cut of the transcript from Real Clear Politics:

SEC'Y CLINTON: … I'm not going to second guess any decision that the attorney general made. But I think it's important that Mayor Bloomberg, that our law enforcement officials in New York, you know, all believe that New York City not only can handle this, but that it is appropriate to go forward in the very area where these people launched this horrific attack against us. You know, I was a senator from New York, and I, I want to see them brought to justice. The most important thing for me is that, you know, they pay the ultimate price for what they did to us on 9/11. And if the attorney general and, and veteran prosecutors think this is the best way to achieve that outcome, then I think that, you know, they should be given the, the right to move forward as they see appropriate.

(Emphasis mine.)

The outcome is the most important thing to Secretary Clinton and to the administration for which she works.  The appropriateness of jurisdiction and venue  doesn’t matter.  The rules of evidence don’t matter.  Nothing matters except for the outcome and the outcome which Secretary Clinton claims to want is death for KSM and his boys.  So if it isn’t important that the proper process be followed when determining the fate of these…these…these  human beings…if the process is secondary to the outcome then why are they bothering? 

Because I think we all know of an even better way that the “ultimate price” outcome can be achieved.

However, isn’t proper and due process supposed to be of the utmost of importance when an individual find him/her fate under review by a given court?  Aren’t the rules, rather than the outcome, supposed to be at the crown jewels of the legal edifice of this country?

If these Jihadis get the death penalty in this court, our problems are not over but are just beginning and not just those which will be caused by their brethren.

Once the  process is thrown out, once the rules are thrown out, once the outcome becomes the most important factor in making legal decisions, all bets are off.  Americans will be just as subject to outcome-based jurisprudence (again) as it appears that KSM will be.  That’s one of the most important reasons that President Obama and Attorney General Holder want GITMO closed and the prisoners thereof subject to US law and granted the rights which all those on American soil enjoy.

Another thing: Secretary Clinton, et al. are also giving lip service to wanting a guilty verdict.  One word: Miranda.  That's  proof in a nutshell that they have other endgames in mind.

No Heart (UPDATED)

Does this pose look familiar?

Of course it does.

:::note to self: remember, Self, there is no such thing as a coincidence:::

(Thanks to American Digest)

UPDATE: This set of photos is also very illuminating as to the attitude and character of the President of the United States of America.

The evidence of what he is is overwhelming.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Sand in the Tent

Last year, Gerard Vanderleun, J.B. White and I discussed how betrayal has become celebrated or, at the very least, expected.  Great and small treacheries, when publicized, are pretty much given the ho-hum treatment by the Old Media and, indeed, by the public at large.

Did that change with the terror attack perpetrated last week by Major Nidal Malik Hasan? In spite of the calls by some average citizens for the United States Army officer to be charged with treason for shooting down other United States Army officers, NCOs, soldiers and others, I’m not so sure.

One of the discussions that has stemmed from the attack is the surprise that US military members don’t walked around armed all the time.  (Aside: I had long known about this misconception and had used it to my advantage by bumper-sticker advertising my veteran status.  For a lone female Southern California driver, it’s a survival necessity.) Close on the heels of that surprise follows outrage at this policy.   This outrage speaks to a gap in perception about the military, how its members think of a military base located in the USA and how we think of each other.

Simply put, a stateside military base is considered a home and those allowed to enter that home are considered family.  On a military base there are no drive-by shootings, no burglaries, no carjackings, no muggings, etc.  In that area of strictly-regulated entry, everyone is considered your brother, your sister or at least your friend even if you’ve never met them.

And that strict regulation is backed up by a personnel assigned and trained to protect that area of land: a military police force and/or a DOD-contracted force Police Force*--armed of course.  And that area is patrolled by these forces, along with being surrounded by fencing topped with barbed wire.

So when I hear civilians and even some military members express outrage that no one other than law enforcement was armed when the Fort Hood Soldier of Allah attacked, I submit that they are reacting from anger rather than thinking through the implications of the necessity of having every military member go armed on a domestic military base.

It would be like having to wear a sidearm in your house to defend yourself against your parents, your spouse, your siblings and your children.  If you can’t trust your family, you can trust no one.  And, outside of the fourteen murdered, that is the mostly galling aspect of Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s jihad against those wearing the same uniform as he.

Those angry at the fact that no one was armed other than the fort’s law enforcement personnel either don’t know or forget that there exists various types of adhesive that make the United States Military the most fearsome force in the world.  Many of the angry have learned to take treachery for granted.  But we—military members and veterans—do not.

If we have to arm soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines against the potential betrayal of other soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines then I would say that one of our enemies’ goals has been reached: a weakening of the bonds which exist between brothers and sisters wearing the uniform.  It still may be necessary to do it, but something essential will have been tainted if not lost. 

The concepts of loyalty, trust and an oath-keeping brotherhood have been severely damaged by Major Hasan and those above him in his chain of command. 

Can we get that back? Only time, circumstances and action will tell.

Funeral of Army Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger

Godspeed to the Fort Hood Martyrs whose lives are being remembered today.

*My brother-in-law, a DOD police officer, corrects. Sergeants Kimberly Munley and Mark Todd are DOD police officers.

My Novel's Website

Tale of the Tigers

As for the baldilocks website, scroll down for daily posts.

Black Conservatives on Glenn Beck Show (UPDATED)

My invitation must have gotten lost in the mail, but I can't wait to see this on the rerun of the Glenn Beck Show tonight.

(Thanks to Booker Rising)

UPDATE:

Time to be Heard, Part 1

You can view the rest of the videos here.

(Thanks to African American Conservatives)

Two More Stirs of the Pot

 President Obama decides to throw out the advice of US military commanders and make no decision about the way forward in Afghanistan—thus making a decision.  This no-decision decision will appear one way to our enemies, especially the enemy known as Islamism: President Obama is, once again, making the United States look weak.  Someone at one of the many sites I frequent called the president’s now-familiar tactic “baring one’s jugular to a wolf.”  I almost added “…hoping that the wolf will show compassion,” and, thereby, falling into the trap that so many do when discussing President Obama’s actions and motives: assuming that the man has the best intentions toward the country he was elected to lead.

And today, the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Soldiers of Allah in civilian federal court located in New York City comes to the fore.   Aside from the jumble of legal jurisdiction problems of putting military combatants before a civilian court and providing them with the rights that Americans and other civilians enjoy while in this country, it will be necessary to publicize classified material and methods.  And, in addition, bringing these enemies from Guantanamo Bay to NYC will endanger New Yorkers.  If you don’t think that other Soldiers of Allah are champing at the bit for this process to begin, you’re not paying attention.

President Obama means to bring this country to its knees so that he can consolidate power over it. And these two decisions are meant to embolden our enemies to act.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to make a statement about this decision this morning.  I can’t wait to hear his usual quality of logic.

 UPDATE: Andy McCarthy

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

[Emphasis mine. More added to the McCarthy quote, which needs no further commentary.]

What Does It Mean

...when you get called both a white supremacist and a politically-correct apologist for black racism within the same week?

Check Your Premises

If there is such a thing as a 'moderate Muslim'--a term used often by the everyday press--and a 'moderate Muslim' is a good thing to be, is it good or bad to be and extreme Muslim or even a regular, normal everyday Muslim?  And after it is determined whether it is good or bad to be an extreme Muslim or a normal Muslim, it would be nice to know why either is good or bad.

Put this another way: if being a Muslim is good then why be a moderate one?

Happy Veterans Day 2009

In honor of our friends at Fort Hood...

Watch your front, boys and girls and, as is increasingly necessary, your back.

UPDATE: From Reason TV--this is awesome.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

President Obama's Remarks at Fort Hood

Transcript.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call — the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

It was a good speech, well-delivered even.  And the First Lady was properly turned out for the occasion this time.

No sniping today, if you'll pardon the monstrous word usage.

Godspeed to the Martyrs of Fort Hood.

(Thanks to Hot Air; photos belong to the Washington Examiner)