Why do neo-cons hate the rule of law?

From the bitching about the KSH terror trial in New York City to moaning about standard legal proceedings allowed to any criminal, conservatives are showing themselves to hate the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is that no one hopes these people go free. But how do we as a country justify violating our own laws to rig a trial? Shouldn't we as a nation be showing the parts of the world that hate us the greatness of our court system? Shouldn't we show that even the most hated criminals get their day in an open court?

I fail to understand how one can suggest that we have closed banana republic-type hearings for anyone, much less those accused of murder.

To be sure, it's galling that they still get the presumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty. But that's the Constitution at work.

Bill O'Reilly teed off on Scott Fenstermaker, a lawyer for accused 9/11 terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali in a habeas corpus case challenging Ali's detention (video here).

O'Reilly: Don't you think people watching you, and millions are right now, counselor, and I don't mean this with any disrespect, think that you're a weasel?

Fenstermaker: They might. That's fine.

O'Reilly: Cause I do. And you seem like a nice guy, but I'm saying this guy sitting in front of me doesn't think these people were murdered on 9/11 when we saw what happened; if he won't say they were murdered or not, he's a weasel.

...
O'Reilly: You know people hate you. Do you care?

Fenstermaker: No, I'm honored that they hate me. The people that hate me hate the rule of law.

Bravo counselor.

I'd also like to remind Mr. O'Reilly that John Adams - future 2nd President of the United States - defended the soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre, calling it "one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country". Even though much of the nation hated him for it, Adams realized that every man is due his day in court and deserves a fair trial. That's how we do it in America.

Fear-gasm

(Bob Cesca)

Have you noticed the new KSM photo?

Until now, every time Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was discussed on television, we'd get this picture:



The Drunken Ron Jeremy photo in which he's clearly borrowed a t-shirt formerly worn by an elephant.

But now that we're talking about bringing KSM to New York for trial and the Republicans are in full pissy pants frightened crybaby mode, they're using this photo:



Wild scary eyes in full evildoer regalia. HEEELP! This crazy bastard will be ordering egg creams and blowing up subways any second now! Just look at his scary grinning face! AAAAAH!

Boy, that seems familiar. Where could I have seen.... oh, yeah.....




By the way, when you have three guys normally referred to as far-right whackjobs telling you to knock off the fear-mongering, you might want to listen. It's like Paris Hilton telling you that you're acting like a skanky ho.

Former Republican Congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, have teamed up to urge the Gitmo detainees be taken to the U.S.

"The scaremongering about these issues should stop," Barr, Keene and Norquist wrote.

"Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases," they wrote. "Civilian prisons are the safe, cost effective and appropriate venue to hold persons in federal courts."

Conservatives piss all over American values; turn into cowards

With the decision by the Attorney General to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self- proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, in federal court in New York City, conservatives are flipping their shit in three directions.

First, they feel it's presents a security threat.

Second, they don't want to give Mohammed a forum for his extremist views.

Third, they fear that putting him into criminal court, as opposed to a military tribunal, will expose the trial process to "unforseen circumstances"

Let's go one by one and address the security issues first.

Rudy Giuliani said moving the trials to New York will create additional costs and security concerns for the city.

To refute Rudy, I present.... Rudy. On March 5, 1994, he said:

"(The verdict in the trial of the 1993 WTC bombers) demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.

It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world

I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead."

Additionally, in 2006, he praised the civilian trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying he was "in awe of our system" and that we "are a nation of law."

So, at it's essence, when it's George Bush putting them on trial, our judicial system is the proper venue. When it's Obama, it's a mistake.

Hypocrite much?

Plus, Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly have declared New York ready to handle the security issues. And finally, Giuliani is acting like NYC isn't currently a terrorist target - trial or not.

Secondly, the forum argument. Sarah Palin decries allowing our Constitution to work, saying:

"Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their 'clients.' The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts. It will also be an insult to the victims of 9/11, as Mohammed will no doubt use the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric in the same neighborhood in which he ruthlessly cut down the lives of so many Americans."

Let me get this straight. We should throw away the document that makes us better than them. We should strip them of the rights and protections that they themselves would see removed from their own people. We should prove ourselves to be hypocrites and conduct a trial in secret, without the rule of law.

I always suspected that the far right wanted to be like the Taliban, this just helps prove it.

Lastly, the danger of "unforseen circumstances". Ummm..... like the waterboarding that the GOP supported to obtain confessions? The waterboarding Mohammed went through 183 times? The risk that a judge might throw out parts of the confession?

I don't like the idea either. But I like much less the idea that we'll conduct ourselves like a 4th world banana republic when it suits our needs. Our judicial system has been one of the bulwarks of our democracy for the last 218 years. We can't go ditching it now out of fear or expediency.