Mohammed criminal court trial-- right or wrong?

It's fitting. Two blocks away from where his diabolical plot killed 3,000 people, Kalid Shaikh Mohammed will be put on trial. Some find it fitting the self professed mastermind behind 9/11 will face the citizens of New York once again. Others find it sick and twisted that a person responsible for 3,000 deaths can be given the same rights as an American citizen. Personally, I am torn.
I do find it fitting that the trials, or whatever method used to bring Mohammed to justice, are being held in New York. Not only does it make sense from a logical standpoint, but it makes sense from an emotional standpoint as well. Logically speaking, the crimes committed by Mohammed were committed in New York City, hence 9/11. Therefore it is only logical that the trials be held in New York City as well. From a more emotional standpoint, it is only fitting that the city who suffered the most from the 9/11 attacks get the first taste of justice by eliciting a conviction in their own courts. That is of course, if there is a conviction.
For the most part I agree with liberals on matters like these. We should not think ourselves to be so high and mighty we are above the rule of law in our country. However, in this case justice is no longer a term to be thrown around lightly-- it is a necessity. If the self professed mastermind of 9/11 were to be let off the results would be nothing short of disastrous for the American people. Is that disastrous result worth the glorified and didactic moral justice the Obama Administration seeks to obtain?
Sure, it is some statement to make to world. It shows the world hat we no longer belive ourselves to be above the rule of law we expect other countries to abide by. After eight years of hypocrisy-- eight years of breaking international and U.S law in the name of justice-- it is always important portray ourselves in a different light. Trying Mohammed in a criminal court does just that. However, does a conviction, and all the glory that comes with it, really justify the risk we take of getting an acquittal? Shouldn't we be afraid of a modern version of an OJ Simpson trial? A highly publicized trial which leads to a high publicized acquittal. Shouldn't we try to avoid that scenario by all means?
Luckily for us, generally self confessed criminals don't do well in court. Furthermore, it is not like we have not tried terrorists before. Terrorists such as Omar Abdel-Rahman (Blind Shiek), Richard Reid (Shoe bomber), and Zacarias Moussavi , who was convicted of 9/11 conspiracy, were all successfully tried in criminal courts and face life sentences. Conservative pundits and politicians seem to think sending Mohammed to prison gives him a recruiting opportunity; that holding a trial in New York will put it at risk of another terrorist attack, that the trial will only motivate more terrorists. They are wrong. However, one point they make I can understand. Conservatives argue that Mohammed should be tried in military court. Despite all the evidence that Mohammed will be convicted the conservative point begs a question out of me: Why can't we try Mohammed in military tribunals? Technically, they are "enemy combatants" or even prisoners of war. It would be legal to try them in military tribunal.
The problem with trying Mohammed in a criminal court, despite the overwhelming evidence against him, is the very way the government obtained that evidence. Through illegal torture. It is a very huge possibility that the judges will not turn a blind eye to the methods used by the Bush Administration to collect information let alone the defense attorneys. Yet, despite this overwhelming possibility Attorney General Eric Holder claims he has the evidence necessary, without or without the judge noticing the "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a conviction.
Yet despite Mr. Holders comforting words, I still can't help but be reminded of trial in 1994 where a college football star gets a away with murder in a highly publicized trial despite overwhelming evidence which point to the contrary. Why take the risk? With the help of some suppressed evidence Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could very well be the next OJ Simpson. What would happen then? Hopefully, we won't ever have to answer that question.

Muslims in Military?

We came across this astonishing post. What do you think?

It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.

This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.

And don't give us reassurances about the oaths that Muslim soldiers take to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hasan took that oath, and it proved meaningless. In fact, the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to lie to you through his teeth, since lying to the infidel to advance the cause of Islam is commended, not just permitted, in the Koran.

It's time we all got over the nonsense that all cultures and religions are equally valid or worthy. They most certainly are not. While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.

And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.

What egregious generalizations. It is amazing how ignorant some of the Christian right is of their own past. Equally remarkable is how easy it is for the right to target a whole group of people. Good grief...

Glenn Becks Connections

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Bill Maher and Ridiculous Republicans

I thought some people might enjoy this video...

SNOWE SET TO VOTES YES

From the Huff Post

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Tuesday that she intends to vote for passage of the Senate Finance Committee's health care reform package. She cautioned that her vote should be seen as a sign of her faith in the process going forward and not as support for the final package that will arrive on the Senate floor.

"It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow," she said. Snowe's yes vote keeps her at the negotiating table and at the center of the health care reform debate.

Her vote, she said, comes amid knowledge that Democrats don't need Republicans to pass the landmark legislation.

"The majority has the votes. It has the votes in the House. It has the votes in the Senate," she said.

Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was thrilled at the news, complimenting Snowe for her "very thoughtful statement. It'll be well remembered and I thank you for it."

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), also a finance committee member, said that Snowe's vote bodes well for final passage. "It sets the stage," he said on MSNBC. "Susan Collins will likely come with her fellow Maine senator when this bill hits the floor."

This is closest we have come to good health care in a long, long time.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/snowe-voting-yes-on-senat_n_318745.html

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to American, Conservatives Go Crazy With Rage

Today President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to create diplomacy throughout the world. While many individuals question the award, only three groups outright objected to it: the Taliban, claiming he has done nothing to pursue peace in Afghanistan; Hamas, because the American government still does not recognize the nation of Palestine; and American Conservatives, because he is President Obama.

It is a stark, and possibly even radical, comparison to make of Conservatives and radical Muslim groups however their unwillingness to admit wrong or defeat and their eagerness to use radical means towards a goal is strikingly similar. Over the past year Conservatives have abandoned their unmatched patriotism that supported two wars for an unprecedented 'hate' for President Obama. After laughing and cheering when the United States of America loses the Olympics, and then throwing a fit of rage when he President of the United States of America wins the Nobel Peace Prize, some organizations such Media Matters are compelled to ask the question "If not America, then who are the Republicans rooting for?". It is a question that should be asked.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee their choice was one of confidence in Obama to gain global support for his diplomatic policies such as nuclear non-proliferation. They praised the President for creating " new climate in international politics.". This justification, although, is not enough for critics of the award who claim Obama has done nothing in office. However, just by taking a look at America alone, one can see that criticism is unfounded. Just in the time Obama took office until now, according to a poll of 25 countries from Pew Global Attitudes Project, America has found itself with double digit boosts to the percentage of people who view America favorably all across the world. In Germany , over 90 percent of people approve of America, compared to the 12 percent that approved America a little over a year ago. This is no minor accomplishment. Obama is being awarded for setting the stage for a most peaceful world in the history of the Earth--a world where America can recognized as an active leader and participant.

Take the word of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, "[The peace prize confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...".

If the new approval ratings don't convince you of Obama's impact on international community, the praise he has received will. Upon receiving the prize Obama received praise from leaders all across the world including: Mikhail Gorbachev, the regime of Hamid Karzai, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, just to name a few.

However, to Republicans, overwhelming international praise and major feats not enough for the Nobel Peace Prize, and they are quick to offer their opinion on the issue-- even more proof that the GOP is disconnected with the rest of the nation. Glenn Beck said that Obama setting a new stage in the world for peace was not enough for the award, and that it really should have been awarded to a movement he started that featured posters and propaganda that depicted Obama as a Nazi and witchdoctor. RedState's Erick Erickson credited Obama's award towards affirmative action-- does that even make sense?

In the past week we have seen a peak into the conservative party that is shocking and disturbing. The Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize have shown the world that this unparalleled patriotism conservatives claim to have was never for the United States of America, it was for a rich white America, and right-wing America, a Conservative America. Anything else is the enemy.

Shame on Max Baucus for killing the public option

(This article will be featured in the New University on Monday)

There was one a moment in the history of the health reform bill (H.R 3200) where passing reform through Congress seemed like an easy task--and it was. That was back in early August. That was before the health care bill met Sen. Max Baucus. Since the bill came in contact with Baucus it has been ripped, shredded, smeared--the works, and it is mostly because of Sen. Baucus.
On August 1st, H.R 3200 had passed through four out of five committees in the senate with relative ease. Ideally, the bill was supposed to pass through the fifth with the same grace. Obviously that was not the case. Why? Sen. Baucus called for a bi-partisan effort and stopped the bill dead in its tracks to make the infamous "gang of six", composed of conservative democrats and allegedly moderate republicans (if you can call Sen. Grassley a moderate). Since then the health reform bill has been cut down inch by inch and has been muddled with countless concessions and compromises--one of those compromises including the public option. Now, bi-partisanship is wonderful, however it has been more than evident the republicans are just looking to kill any bill that is proposed. So, here we are today, with a health care bill watered down with concessions Sen. Baucus has given away, still with no republican votes. Sen. Baucus is literally destroying proper health reform-- and now he is paying the price for it with his political career.
As of late, certain liberal organizations such as Progressive Campaign Change Committee and Democracy for America have retaliated against Sen. Baucas with ads that calls on the American public to hold Sen. Baucus responsible for watering down and stalling health reform and killing the public option. In the ads, set to air in Montana and Washington D.C, Baucus is slammed for receiving upwards of a million in campaign contributions from the health care industry, and is threatened with a loss in the primary elections in 2010. The ads features a man, named Bing Perrine, from Baucus' state, Montana, who has racked up $100,000 in debt from medical bills due to heart problems. Perrine closes the ad directing a rhetorical question towards Sen. Baucus, "who's side are you really on?".
Unfortunately, this type of hardball politics is what pro-reform activists need. It seems as if without them--without these ads--nothing productive will get done on the left side of the isle. This is not to say however, politicians should never make mistakes if they have a hope for getting re-elected. If Sen. Baucus created the "gang of six", realized the Republicans wanted no part of bi-partisanship and then fought to keep health care reform strong, that would have been appropriate. However, that is not what happened. Sen. Baucus continued to make the same stupid mistake of assuming, or allowing, the GOP was there to help pass reform. This level of ignorance at such a crucial time such as this one is utterly unacceptable, and Baucus should be held accountable for his disregard of proper reform. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Sen. Baucus has been fooled for two whole months. So shame on you Sen. Baucus--you do not deserve to be re-elected.
Of course it is important to note not all of the blame can be put on Sen. Baucus. A number of democrats have had this same attitude of appeasement; they too have been targeted. Sen. Mike Ross and independent Sen. Olympia Snowe have had similar ads run against them. While any democrat without a spine at this point deserves to have their political career put in jeopardy, the person who deserves the ads the most is Sen. Baucus. He had the most power to pass reform in the senate and he failed miserably. He watered down the bill for republican votes, but got none. The, when he realized he had no republican votes, he did not have the piece of mind to strengthen the bill again. Worst of all, he voted against adding a public option in the bill during the amendment process. He is the reason a public option becomes a less likely of an option every day. He deserves those ads against more than anyone else in the senate. He should have to reap what he sewed.