the whole KSM thing

.
while most of the country is scratching their heads trying to figure out the twisted rationale behind the obama administration's decision to forego a military tribunal and try the architect of 9/11 in federal court in new york, to me it was merely another example of how tragically in-over-his-head our young and untried president is.

and as further elements of the story emerge--such as how khalid sheikh mohammed was willing to plead guilty and accept the death penalty without trial at guantanamo--it just gets crazier and crazier.

if you haven't seen the following clip in which senate judiciary committee member lindsay graham (never one of my favorites--until now anyway) questions eric holder on the wisdom of this decision, you need to. the good senator starts out easy, lulls our attorney general into a sense of complacency, sets him up--and then, around 1:50, moves in for the kill.



patrick leahy comes in afterwards and attempts to mitigate the fiasco by blathering about guantanamo for a couple minutes, but the damage is done.

as the foregoing makes painfully clear, holder is not only outta his league, he and his boss haven't even made a half-ass effort at thinking this decision through--not only in terms of the instant case, but as to the precedent it would set should, for instance, osama bin laden be caught. this would be funny as hell if it wasn't so deadly serious.

a couple other senators had some good questions, too:


senator herb kohl (a democrat, btw):

In the worst case scenario and the trial does not result in conviction,
what would be your next steps?

eric holder:

Failure is not an option.

sen. chuck grassley takes a go:

I don’t see how you can say that failure is not an option when you’ve got juries in this country.

holder:

If -- if there were the possibility that a trial were not successful, that would not mean that the person would be released into our country.

wait a minute--what happened to the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven? wouldn't pre-trial statements like this by the prosecution be considered wildly prejudicial? i'll bet KSM's attorneys will think so.

and what all about all the evidence gathered via waterboarding and absent the administration of miranda--isn't that all fruit from a very poisoned tree?

and it's not just holder--his boss the president said something similar to NBC when asked about those who might find KSM's receiving the rights of a US citizen offensive:

I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

really, mr. president? a foregone conclusion already?

holder even got his own "i'm the decider" moment.

senator john kyl:

You have repeatedly said that your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Article III courts is because that is where you have the best chance to prosecute… How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before military commission and be executed?

holder:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not making this decision. The attorney general of the United States is making this decision.

yeah, and thanks for that one, eric.

why are they doing this? while i have my own theories, here are the reasons the obama administration is spouting in defense of this most boneheaded of decisions:

1. they wanna show the world how "open" and "transparent" our justice system is.

yeah, and all their "he's gonna go down for sure, and if he doesn't, we'll just re-arrest him on other charges so that he never goes free" statements do nothing but reinforce that idea.

2. they wanna show the world that we're "not afraid" to try him in a civilian court.

of course we're not--as long as we have tens of millions of dollars' worth of police and military personnel and firepower paralyzing the city of new york for weeks in order to provide "security" while this farce runs its course.

and the clear message to the world? well, think about it: can you imagine any one westerner whose presence in even the humblest, most backward middle-eastern country could stir up this much shit? yet here we are, the mightiest nation on earth, preparing to call out half the army to protect us in our own country against possible fallout from KSM's fan base when we "try" him.

my prediction is, this show trial will prove to be the greatest propaganda tool radical islam has ever had--even at my most creative, i can't imagine a better way to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

oh, and one other question, mr. failure-is-not-an-option: what is your politically-correct, diversity-loving ass gonna do about the muslims in the jury pool who swear with shifty eyes that they can be impartial?

this is gonna be rich.

a guttermorality news round-up

.
since documenting the details of the day-to-day march of western civilization towards the abyss has become just too exhaustingly painful for yours truly to rail about on a regular basis, i've decided to do it in big batches at random periodic intervals [i.e., like tonight].


from the guttermorality health-and-science desk:













global warming climate change.

the most inconvenient truth i've come across in awhile was a quote in a recent short-but-sweet article by BBC climate correspondent paul hudson, as follows:

For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though manmade carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

[emphasis mine]

heretic? of course he is, and he has been roundly condemned as such by the faithful.

because, make no mistake about it: the global-warming cult is every bit as much a religion--with all its high priests, dogma and trappings--as any of the more traditional religions at which most of its secular adherents would sneer.

and i'm talking not only in its dubious basis in fact, but in its desire for world domination.

be dubious, my children--be very dubious.


from the guttermorality national-affairs desk:















the fort hood shooting.

wow, just look at how far america's come.

back at the outbreak of world war II [i.e., the last war we won], the civil rights of thousands of loyal japanese-american citizens were, without much thought or debate, thrown out the window for what almost nobody at the time even questioned was a more important ideal; i.e., the security of the united states of america.

today, a scant 67 years later? hell, we'll happily lay back, spread our legs, compromise our military and our borders and sacrifice the lives of at least 13 of our soldiers, because god knows a minor abstraction like national security is far less important than the all-important goal of not offending our enemies.

has the pendulum swung from one dangerous extreme to the other? what the fuck [assuming you have a rational, functioning brain] do you think?


from the guttermorality world-affairs desk:












the obama bow.

watching this guy veer wildly between snotty aloofness and kiss-ass obsequiousness when he meets with world leaders is kinda like watching oprah back during that period when she was alternately fat and thin--you just never know which one you're gonna get when you flip on the tv.


from the guttermorality political desk:









2012.

the next presidential election will be the republicans' to lose, and it'll probably be the last time they'll ever have a real shot at the white house.

with this in mind, is the gop rallying behind the traditional conservative values of fiscal responsibility, limited government and secularity in order to seek the kind of candidate that will unite and inspire the core of america for what will probably be the most important presidential election of my lifetime?

oh, hell no--they're pandering to the same fools-for-jesus constituency whose collective ignorant, know-nothing ass they've been kissing ever since said crowd proved to be such useful idiots in the reagan years.

so it looks like my choice in 2012 is shaping up to be (a) more of the same; or (b) some unholy combination of palin/pawlenty/jindal/bachmann/huckabee.

i may well opt for (3) costa rica [and don't think i'm kidding].


from the guttermorality financial desk:











hey, even a broken drunk's right twice a day--i can only hope at least a couple of you paid attention to me way back when.

movie night

.
[during which mkf not only socializes with actual people, but even has actual fun.]

after almost two years in the making, (a) the planets aligned, (b) the schedules coincided, (c) our host finally dragged his lazy ass to costco and bought the requisite big-ass flat-screen, and (d) mkf was only an hour late picking up v--i.e., it finally happened:

movie night.

the theme had been planned long before by our host, john, and myself: a double-feature of cheesy-yet-excellent post-"baby jane" thrillers--and everybody brought their favorite dish.

we chose to lead with a classic from bette (and bette):


followed as inevitably as night follows day by the immortal miss crawford's


trust me, an inspired pairing if ever there was one.

problem was, by the time we finished with drinks and dinner (which were incomparably excellent, as the following snapshot should attest)


we only managed to make it through the first film (which was a rousing success, of course) before reluctantly calling it a night and promising a raincheck for the second.

hey--suddenly, a reason to live.