Thursday, May 10, 2012

Ain’t They Cute?

The mainstream press is treating the actions of the five terrorist defendants at Guantanamo much like they would treat fraternity hi jinx at a college party. Instead of describing their behavior as totally out-of-control and destructive of the rule of law, the news services and the TV networks seem almost sympathetic, as they did with the unruly Chicago Seven clowns back in 1969.

Each outburst or defiance of the military tribunal is described as “defiant,” as if they were legitimately protesting a kangaroo court. In fact, The New York Times described the defendants who have committed mass murder as “defiant, but mostly quiet.” If you behaved “mostly quietly” like these defendants, you would be hauled out of the courtroom and charged with contempt even in the most liberal mainland civilian courts. The MSM should be reporting on the admirable restraint shown by the military authorities.

But as usual, the mainstream press has its blinders on. To start with, one of the female defense attorneys showed up in full hijab, then demanded that the female members of the prosecution show respect for the religion of the defendants by adopting the same outfits. No thought whatsoever for respect for the court, which is an American tribunal with Western values. And it’s not as if the female prosecutors showed up in string bikinis. They were dressed appropriately, the defense attorney was not. This isn’t a trial being conducted in Iran by the woman-hating mullahs.

The press has been reporting the behavior of the defendants in the nicest of terms. The best they can come up with is “frequent outbursts.” Along with those frequent outbursts, the defendants have tried to jump over counsel table, threatened the court and the court officers, and disrupted every single move which is expected in a civilized trial. One of the defendants showed up, hands and legs bound, in a wheelchair. The Times and The Washington Post reported that, and added “for no apparent reason.” Well, here’s the reason: The defendant refused to leave his cell to attend the trial, and it was the only way they could get him into the courtroom.

The defense complained that the defendants had been denied a speedy trial. They made no mention of the fact that all the delays have been the result of defense stalling tactics. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had already pled guilty to the charges, then spent two years trying to undo his own plea. American justice leans over backwards to give the defendants as many chances as possible, and that includes military tribunals. So after much wrangling, the plea was withdrawn, followed by mountains of legal paperwork and years of defense motions attempting to thwart any trial at all.

The press mentions the motions by the defense regarding torture. Waterboarding (arguably not torture) was only one of the tall tales being told. No evidence of torture could be produced, and waterboarding was only mentioned in passing. One defendant lifted his shirt to show the scars he got from the torture at Guantanamo, but nobody could see any scars. And of course the mainstream ignores the many al Qaeda manuals the defendants possessed which tell the terrorists to claim they were tortured. All the involved American authorities denied the charges. But how can those denials have any meaning as against the sad stories the MSM are telling about the defendants’ families?

The rules of court require that the defendants hear and understand the charges and evidence against them. Therefore, the court has provided each defendant (and defense counsel) with earphones giving simultaneous translation in Arabic. So naturally, the defendants have been taking the earphones off, occasionally attempting to break them. In response, the court has taken to doing the translations over loudspeakers in the courtoom. The Times gave few of those details, and merely reported the activities as “the defendants repeatedly and persistently disrupting the courtroom.” It’s a great deal more than that. It’s an attempt to nullify the proceedings entirely.

Defense counsel actually had the nerve to ask the court to consider the suffering KSM has gone through as an explanation for his violent and disrespectful behavior. This is the defendant who has the same respect for human life as Adolf Hitler. Nobody, including the Times mentioned the suffering of the 3,000 families that lost loved ones on 9-11. And as for the “disruptions,” how’s this for a disruption—“The defendants shouted I spit on their graves?” Then they knocked chairs out of the way, and made obscene gestures at the court and the members of the 9-11 families attending the proceedings.

Back to the Chicago Seven. The judge in that trial finally did what may have to be done in Guantanamo. When the defendants continued to disrupt the proceedings, they were either bound to their chairs and gagged, or removed entirely from the courtroom to watch and listen to the proceedings in a separate room away from TV and newspaper reporters. But somewhere along the line, and soon, the court is going to have to reach its ultimate level of tolerance and quash this disruption of the most significant trial of the early 21st Century.


Patriot said... you think they will go for a mistrial? Is that their play here? Can that happen at a military tribunal? Also, are they being tried under UCMJ or some other code?

I think you are right that they will have to be sent to time out to watch the proceedings against them due to their behavior. What eventually happened to the Chicago Seven?

Other than pissing me off whenever I read about these cretins, I can only hope they will be taken out after the trial and hanged in public. Better yet, let the families of the slain determine their fate. I suggest a flying lesson from 1500 feet, similar to what the poor souls at the WTC experienced for their last moments. Very schadenfreudic........(is that even a word?)

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

The worst of the worst of the Islamic terrorists.

And the MSM tries to humanize these infrahuman psychopaths.

Sometimes I wish I could spit on these self-described journalists.
And throw ham hocks at these terrorists.

Thanks for the update, LawHawk! Excellent post!

Joel Farnham said...


When it comes to execution of some of these guys, I think putting them in a bag and tying it so their heads are out. Making sure two or three wild badgers are sedated and asleep in the bags. Then tossing them into the nearest creek so that they can stand and the badgers wake up.

The other form of execution I prefer for these guys is similar to what happened to Joe Pesci in Casino. Take three or four huge guys with baseball bats and beat them till they are almost dead. Put them in a grave while they are still alive.

All other forms don't seem to have the best effect.

P.S. If they are going to be shot, I think that all the bullets should be soaked in pigs blood.

rlaWTX said...

Are the prosecutors & judge trying to let these @#$% hang themselves with their antics - a kind of "see, we are nice; they are bad" thing? If so, someone should tell them that the MSM didn't get that memo, and they should shut them up and get going. Then fry 'em.

(every descriptive I could come up with was not slimy and evil enough, so I went with @#$% - fill-in-the-blank)

Unknown said...

Patriot: I don't think they're trying for a mistrial. They just want to disrupt and delay. They want to get their message of hate and mass murder out to the world while at the same time trying to get sympathy for how "badly" they're being treated. They know that even in the stricter military tribunals, much is allowed that would never be put up with in their homelands.

As for the Chicago Seven, they were all convicted on at least some of the charges. Several were later overturned, others had sentences reduced, and some stuck as originally charged. Tom Hayden went on to become a politician and permanent elected representative from Santa Monica, California and was married to Jane Fonda. Abby Hoffman wrote his memoirs, became an iconic figure for the left, then turned into a businessman for the rest of his life. Eventually, the main original charge of conspiracy was reversed as to all the defendants, so mostly they were finally convicted of lesser charges of contempt and property crimes. None served long terms.

There seems to be a certain broad agreement among the general public that once convicted, these terrorists should receive, shall we say, a non-traditional punishment.

Unknown said...

USSBen: I really have trouble looking at these faces of evil. They're lucky they don't have me sitting on that court. My order of business would be arrest, detention, execution, and then a trial. I would later claim erroneous procedural error.

Unknown said...

Joel: We're getting some interesting suggestions on the mode of execution. Unfortunately, if they are convicted (and how could they not be?), the mode of execution will be more traditional than most of us would wish.

AndrewPrice said...

It's no surprise that someone who is intent on destroying American democracy would try to make a mockery of our criminal justice system. Can't say I'm shocked either that the MSM keeps missing the point.

Unknown said...

rlaWTX: This is a truly unique trial, almost unprecedented since Nuremburg. The authorities are still trying to feel their way around the balance of trial procedure and orderly justice. It will take awhile, and it won't be easy. And it is possible the court is giving them enough room to justify restraining the defendants so that the trial can go on in a civilized manner. The MSM may inadvertently help. Even liberals finally get fed up with courtroom disruptions and defendants spewing hate.

Unknown said...

Andrew: As bad as this is, can you imagine how bad it would be if Obama and Holder had succeeded in turning this into a civilian media circus in New York City? It would make the Chicago Seven trial look like a solemn high mass.

tryanmax said...

Rather than grouse about these @!%#& (rlaWTX has the right idea), I prefer to focus on and marvel at the saint-like patience of those who are duty-bound to handle and deal with them.

Unknown said...

tryanmax: I'm consistently amazed at their self-restraint. They deserve congratulations.

Patriot said...

LawHawk.............What is your opinion on the results of the trial? You state obviously they will be found guilty, but then what? When was the last time a military tribunal executed a prisoner of war, and is that option available to the here?

Of course, a guilty verdict would be terrible, as we wouldn't want to "inflame the Arab street." How come the liberals in the media (I know...I know.....) never worry about inflaming the American street?

And since this administration has declared the "War on Terror" is over, how will that affect the prisoner's status?

End this damn charade and use them as shark bait.

Unknown said...

Patriot: Actually, I mused "how could they not?" Anything's possible, but it does seem very unlikely that with just the evidence we've seen so far that they could be found not guilty. But we conduct genuine trials, not show trials. So whether all five will be found guilty of all charges remains to be seen.

The MSM doesn't worry about "inflaming the American street" because they know we won't behead them and burn down their buildings.

Terrorist acts and war crimes are kept separate from the war itself. World War II was over before the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials commenced. So whatever Obama may think about the "war" being over, it doesn't make any difference at trial.

We don't execute prisoners of war as prisoners of war. We execute them as war criminals who may or may not have been held previously as prisoners of war. I think the last executions took place after World War II, but don't hold me to that. War criminals have been executed in cases in which the United States wasn't a party, but I can't think off the top of my head when an American tribunal last executed a war criminal. In addition, there is a new wrinkle in these cases because these are not the leaders of identifiable national entities, which distinguishes these cases from all previous cases.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, It would be an incredible circus and the jihadists would have a field day with the free media publicity the whole time.

Unknown said...

Andrew: I couldn't agree more. The worst part is that the MSM would have treated it like comedy rather than tragedy.

Koshcat said...

There is showing restraint and then there is just being foolish. I understand the judge not wanting to make a scene, but he can stop this foolishness immediately. I think people would be surprised how much he could do but isn't. He could throw out all the media. He could hold the defense lawyers in contempt for actions by their clients. He can have the defendants removed like you stated. If it was me, I think I would have a stern talk with the defense lawyers about getting their clients under control and if that defense lawyer shows up in anything but professional clothing, hold her in contempt as well.

Unknown said...

Koshcat: I sympathize with what you're saying, but I can only partially agree. Throwing out the media would be the worst possible thing they could do. That night's headlines would be "Military Tribunal Decides to Destroy the First Amendment and Conduct Secret Trials of Alleged Terrorists." Why the judges haven't taken more action against the defendants is a mystery, but I'll give them credit for being smart enough to tolerate no more than they have to. Remember, these military judges care little about the political stance of the commander-in-chief or bad publicity. Despite all the hoopla and media lies, the military courts found all the SEAL defendants not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The talk you suggest with the defense attorneys is the one thing I can agree with you on 100%.

Koshcat said...

Although I appreciate the statement about free speech and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but since none of these are citizens, it is my humble belief that they have NO rights. Any rights they have is given to them by our good graces. Therefore, the media has NO rights in this either. I agree that there would be an outcry and it would probably be unwise to throw them out, but it should also be crystal clear to them that they are invited guests. If it was me, I would probably throw all out except one lone reporter from a small newspaper in Kansas. They all just copy from one another anyway.

Anonymous said...

Well Ben, it's pretty rediculous that my parents had a better idea of how to deal with me as a troublemaker than how plenty of politicians nowadays know how to deal with terrorists?

I mean, their taking away my toys and grounding me for real, or giving me the occasional whacking for the misdeeds was so wrong, yet guess where the real problem turned out a few years down the road...

(Hint: it wasn't me...)

Individualist said...

You know the way these terrorists act is the exact opposite of a noble freedom fighter who is acting regrettably in a violent way because there is no other way to do God's work.

Let us take their premise to heart. Let us assume they both believe and are acting out according to the Will of God and we are as the islamists believe creating a climate of sinfulness with our infidelity to God. Let us further assume that they have performed these horrible acts without showing ill will or taking pleasure in them but because they are regrettably necessary.

If I were a person who performed an act of terrorism out of this necessity and believed mu eventual execution would make me a martyr to God I would not do amny of these things.

First in the sentencing I would plead "guilty". I would make some speach about being innocent in the eyes of God but state that for the sake of this court's education I would freely admit to eve3rything I had done b ut reserved the right to defend actions in the sentencing. I would then make certain I was the most cooperative plaintiff this court ever had. Even to the extent of correcting the prosecution to ensure they had the complete truth of my crime.

I would then go into a speech in the sentencing hearing explaining in detail the wrongs I perceive the country I was attacking had performed. Why the violence was deemed inevitable and how they could constructively correct their actions. I would accept the punishment of death and tell them not to feel guilty in sentencing me so as it was God's will and I would thank the judge for telling asking God to have Mercy on my soul.

Do these guys do this? No they act like animals. They act in a manner reminiscent of the Great Satan they accuse us of. They are not of God nor do they believe they are doing God's work.

Post a Comment