Terror Trial in New York City

Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty on February 22 to criminal charges in a terrorist plot to attack the New York subway system, on or near the anniversary of 9/11 last year. A Star-Ledger editorial praised the conduct of the trial in a New York City federal court, while noting the loud noise from followers of former Vice-president Cheney, who are characterizing the use of civilian courts as weak.

The editor is correct in endorsing the handling of this case in criminal court and not by military tribunal. US Attorney General Eric Holder is also correct in prosecuting KSM in criminal court, as was the Bush administration in so handling most terrorism cases during their tenure.

Military tribunals have a poor record for convicting and punishing terrorists, and their recent endorsement by Cheney and other revisionists has nothing to do with our national security, and everything to do with evading the consequences of their past activities.

The military has one charge - use of overwhelming force in defending America from attack - and protection of American interests and allies abroad. Expanding the use of the military for rendition, and operation of detention and interrogation sites around the globe, particularly in Guantanamo, was done to prevent oversight and transparency. Predictably, that lack of oversight led to abuse, torture and, when light was inevitably shed on those practices, discord among our allies and loss of our moral standing in the world community.

The one practical argument for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a military court is that, due to the illegal methods used in extracting evidence, a criminal trial would be subject to many constitutional challenges. But using military tribunals would require legitimizing the process that has brought us to this point, and we need to be moving in the other direction, distancing ourselves legally and morally from those onerous, ineffective and un-American methods.

A public criminal trial of KSM in federal court in Manhattan could be a cathartic rejection of terrorism, putting our democracy and resolve on display to the world - true American exceptionalism. But a frightened local business community, allied with anti-anything-Obama partisans, has raised barriers to this scenario, and the pro-torture faction touts military tribunals as a "reasonable alternative."

Like many seemingly ordinary debates since 9/11, whether or not to treat terrorists as criminals is a choice that cuts to the heart of who we are as a people. Expediency should not be a strong factor here.

Healthcare Summit - Too little too late

It was about time we heard both sides debate this incredibly crucial issue.  Why didn't this open debate occur a year ago from day 1?  Why do we have such an arrogant President who just wants to impose his will on the American People?

Thanks to the snow day I had the opportunity to watch a lot of this live.  It was truly fascinating, I really enjoyed it and I thought it was very iluminating.  We needed at least 20 or 30 of these in 2009, why not let the American People hear these arguments and debates live on tv and let us decide if we want or don't want the healthcare bill?

The President made a huge blunder by keeping the negotiations a secret from us.  Yesterday for the first time I personally felt that doing something about our healthcare system is paramount and probably pretty urgent.  The notion that $1 out of every $3 spent on Medicare is fraud and abuse was not surprising but definitely a wake up call.  The fact that 50% of the money in Medicare is spent by 5% of recipients is astounding.  Things like coordinated care could dramatically reduce this figure.  But these are just a few of the examples that come to mind, I'm sure there are thousands.

One of the things that kept coming up was the notion that pooling everyone together and making the pool incredibly big by definition should reduce the cost of premiums by spreading risk.  That made sense to me.  One counter argument I have to that is that there is an inherent assumption that a higher percentage of uninsured is healthy and therefore the risk would be diluted.  What if we really are adding a bunch of sicker folks to the system?  That may increase the cost of the premiums.

The entire debate on pre-existing conditions was very interesting and it made me see more clearly why you have to mandate people getting coverage.  Without mandating coverage what would prevent people from not getting insurance until they get sick? 

One thing I have a big problem with is coverage and deficit.  I don't know who to believe on this one.  One thing is for sure, you can't add 30 million people to the system for free.  In fairness to BO, he said that again and again.  The question in my mind is, can we really afford it?

It bugs the heck out of me that I feel we have wasted an entire year, kept the public out of this and now probably wasted a tremendous opportunity to effect real and productive change.  In the end the President will do what he has done so far, impose his will and do what he thinks is the right solution to the problem.  I'm convinced that a real positive solution exists out there but the partisan bickering will kill any possibility of arriving at that solution. 

Is Iraq Unraveling?

Media and most political attention to the "War on Terror" has lately been focused on Pakistan and Afghanistan, perhaps leaving the average American news consumer under the illusion that the US disengagement from the Iraq war is proceeding smoothly and on schedule. For months, MSM reports about election preparations in Iraq lack the urgency of the high-stakes poker games we are reading about in stories from Kabul and Islamabad.

The Iraq narrative, related in an unsexy drone, except for the scattered attacks, bombings and beheadings that in recent years have come to be viewed as almost normal, is most remarkable for what is not happening: progress toward the political reconciliation that American military effort has surged to allow. With major US troop withdrawals scheduled over the Summer, this lack of progress is stirring unease among military experts, who worry that civil war could result from a premature exit of American forces.

Thomas E. Ricks, a Pulitzer prize winning former Wall Street Journal reporter, who has written extensively on defense matters, including two books on the Iraq war, argues in a NYTimes op-ed today, that President Obama should consider softening the deadline for ending the war, saying the Iraqi government will most likely not be strong enough to stand on its own for the forseable future. What he does not offer is any scenario more hopeful than what we beheld in the days immediately after Saddam Hussein was toppled. In another op-ed in the same issue, Tom Friedman wonders whether Saddam was a brutal dictator because that was the only way to hold Iraq together.

Is Iraq capable of peacefully sharing power [and oil wealth] among three different cultures? Are good faith negotiations to that end even possible under the American occupation? These will remain unknown until all foreign forces leave. Until then, the intrigues and manipulations by numerous individuals and factions of various interested outsiders make for an unstable political environment indeed.

Since 2008, America has been paying with blood and money for the relative tranquility in Iraq, and thus avoiding possibly disastrous consequences of its 2003 invasion. Will the likelihood of civil war diminish as we buy time, making an extended stay by American forces worthwhile? Or are we, after thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, in exactly the same place we were in the summer of 2003?

Caution: Quagmire Ahead!

The eight year war in Afghanistan looks more and more like the war in Viet Nam.

Unwinnable by military power, yet lacking a comprehensive political strategy for winning support of the Afghan people, the war grinds along, consuming lives and resources, as it wears down the resolve of the Afghans and the patience of Americans. How long can we avoid looking frankly at what is realistically achievable? And that only after we clearly define our logistical goal there. If terrorism is our enemy, we need to coldly assess what is causing it, and stop fueling its growth. Drones and smart bombs are clearly not the answer.

There is still hope for Obama to act for peace. A significant part of his election support was from the peace movement; which has since waited for the change to happen on its own. It won't, without support from those who sent him to change policy. The dreadful resources of the war culture are firmly entrenched in DC, and Obama, if so inclined, can only challenge it with a popular mandate.

A number of well-known antiwar activists have signed onto a statement being circulated by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, calling for an end to US military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The statement and a partial list of signers are at http://www.cpdweb.org/stmts/1014/stmt.shtml.

Can Obama Play the Race Card?

To acknowledge racism in ourselves is a strength, not a weakness - for it exists in all of us: black, white, brown, yellow. Fear of those different from ourselves is part of our human condition and, if I were an anthropologist, I would probably understand it as a survival instinct. To bridge the divide this causes requires honest appreciation of the impulse, before useful compensating actions can be devised. Denial of its existence is non-productive. I wish Obama could occasionally acknowledge the racial component, and simply point out that it will be dealt with as we can, without getting bogged down over intent, extent, existence etc. My druthers would not last long in the DC coliseum, so I give him slack in this [as with all I wish he could do], but not to address racism head on, misses a golden opportunity afforded by electing a black man as President.

When will the Left learn?

Libya to Flaunt Lockerbie Bomber at Celebration
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545100,00.html

Yes. This time it was Scotland. But the strongest objection our Prez could muster up was that the bomber's release was "highly objectionable".
Really? "Highly objectionable"?
Heaven forbid we insult anyone with what we say, our dead citizens and their families excluded.

And what did people think Libya was going to do with this event? Listen to the West and be quiet about it? They will do the same thing that certain Paterson NJ residents did when the twin towers went down: Dance in the streets and throw candy in the air.

Lessons, lessons, lessons...

There is an old Russian saying that goes something like this:
Garbatovo magila ispravet.
Only a grave will straighten out the 'terminally misled'. ("Garbatiy" actually means hunched over.)

We can talk until we're blue in the face. For the far Left, it doesn't matter. The only thing left to do is VOTE when the time comes.

Obama Says to Lower Volume in Health Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/health/policy/16address.html
Now our Prez tells us to shut up. Wonderful. What's next?

For you BO fans… today he’s telling us to shut up. Tomorrow if you don’t like what he’s doing, he’ll tell you to shut up, too. Think about it.

Not that this is ever acceptable in our free speech society, where political speech above all, is the most cherished and protected, but if at least BO would have been right about any one thing that he's said or done in the last 6 months, he might perhaps give some people pause to reconsider their position. Not only is that not the case, but for the President of the United States to tell ANY American citizen to shut up is downright despicable. It should not be tolerated by anyone.

Moving on, let’s look at the stellar examples he gives to support his position for national health care:
"“When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to ‘federal snooping’ and force Americans to wear dog tags,” Mr. Obama said. “When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of ‘socialized medicine.’ Sound familiar?”"

Remove the exaggerations, and you’re left with: Social security and Medicare. Yea.
Here are two programs that are going belly up as we speak. Medicare is also cutting back on coverage for seniors. So, modeled after these programs, we are to conclude that our proposed national health care system is going to be broke, won't provide all the services we need, and won’t support the next generation of citizens who are going to pay for it now. BO's example. Not mine.

His other fine example was comparing national health care to the US postal service, and how FedEx and UPS coexist and compete. Well there it is. That’s the closest comparison yet from him. USPS: Long lines, lost mail, and grouchy and belligerent personnel. FedEx and UPS: Take your pick, but they’re both trying to outdo each other in customer service and technology, and most businesses use one or the other, but not the USPS. So substitute USPS with national health care, FedEx with Blue Cross, and UPS with Aetna (or whatever), and there you go. The only other problem is that BO has said on multiple occasions (something he now denies.. another lie) that he ultimately wants a 1-payor system. So in my example, remove FedEx and UPS, and you're left with...

Are we that dumb?

I thought people said BO was intelligent.

Can this get much worse?
I’m afraid to think about the answer.