The Good Old Sixth Amendment Days

Oh Lord, what have we become?

Does it occur to Kristol to count the dead from his neocon war of choice? What shall we do with him? Dispense with justice, convict him and put him to death? Hmmm.

I am reminded of a line from The Wizard of Oz (1939 film version). It's in the beginning, when Miss Gulch gets an order from the judge to take Toto away, and Auntie Em says to her that for 30 years she's been wanting to tell her what she thought of her, and now, well, being a Christian woman, she can't say it. :-)

And so it is with Kristol et al. We cannot treat him as he would treat others because, well, we care about the U.S. Constitution.

The crime happened on US soil and by a US citizen. Why shouldn't Hassan get a swift and fair trial?

"We cannot treat him [Kristol] as he would treat others because, well, we care about the U.S. Constitution."

Damn.

As is so often the case, the real story is not about the issue of a trial, justice, expenditure, in a democratic society...........it is about KRISTOL, a man who has been discredited in so many ways and yet he continues to be invited to spout his vindictives. I think the subject at hand is the state of journalism which IMO I think is in a beleaguered state. Furthermore, I think he should be shown the door like sweet Lou, the caveman with pure American blood. Since he doesn't have a show to be fired from, I would say he should be dis-invited........He's a dishonest schlep!

This is a good example of deliberately misleading political journalism and it's disappointing to see it on a site that calls itself The Moderate Voice.

I saw that program in which Kristol made those remarks. His point -- which would be clear of his quote was not truncated -- was that Napolitano's declaring that "the number one priority" was to bring Hasan to justice was dumb, because he clearly was going to be, having been caught redhanded in the act of chasing the wounded to shoot them again. There are dozens of eyewitnesses, so bringing him to justice is a piece of cake that the Secretary of Hoeland Security need not concern herself with (anyway, she has nothing to do with it; that;s the job of the FBI and the Army at this point). He went on to say that it was telling that Napolitano had nothing to say about the priorities of her actual job -- Homelnad Security - now that there has been another terror attack.

Now, some would argue that it was not a terror attack or that Napolitano has no need to address it as such. But that;s a whole different issue. Making it appear that Kristol doesn't want the man to get a trial is, frankly, the sort of lie that "moderate" people in politics don't engage in.

I thought I felt the earth tremble, but instead of being caused by a natural earthquake it was caused by the collective roll of our Founding Fathers turning over in their graves when they heard Kristol speak his words.

A US citizen desreves fair trial no matter how egregious the crime. The 9-11 guys I am not so sure about.

Unfortunately, John, that is what Kattenburg lives for...........to read Memeorandum each day to find where some other lefty blogger does all the work for her and finds some form of a truncated sentence or incomplete expression of a thought and then relies on that literal expression to convey a unflattering portrait of her political opponents.

To any mature mind, the truncated sentence obviously included the thought precedent that the likely certain conviction would come within the setting of a trail.........but it is easier to try and score another cheap point with her TMV peanut gallery than to allow for what would be that likely context.

But, as tidbits pronounced yesterday, Kattenburg strikes him/her as a "moderate mainstream Democrat."

I am no Kristol fan, actually I think he represents a lot of what is wrong with the GOP, but his point is being misrepresented here. He is not suggesting there be no trial of Hasan, he is saying Napolitano's priorities are misplaced. Napolitano is suggesting the number one priority should be bringing Hasan to justice, something that should be relatively straightforward, while Kristol believes the priority should be researching what happened and preventing it from occurring again.

CO -

Nice job of misquoting me, which I assume you did intentionally and for effect. Didn't know I was important enough to justify being misquoted. Thank you.

But, lest anyone think it accurate, here's one of the things I actually said about Kathy, "she is the most consistently liberal voice at TMV."

I did posit the thought that both the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the conservative wing of the Republican Party are within the mainstream.

Btw, there is a difference between taking a quote out of context, which you accuse Kathy of, and making one up out of whole cloth, which is what you did here. But, you made your point, and I don't begrudge you that.

For the record, and setting aside current comments, Kristol, should be fact checked about everything he writes or says.............he has been caught telling one type of lie or another for a long time....

John Burke -- this is not a moderate Web site, as you already can see for yourself. Even those of us who are moderate (whom the far lefties rush to mislabel "far right," instinctively, in the most primitive neurological and related ways, akin to mere reflexes), aren't necessarily moderate, including how we often react to the frequent extremism and related controversial behavior by others here.

"she is the most consistently liberal voice at TMV"

Kathy is, indeed. Consistent, though "liberal" is being too loose with the language; she is "progressive" (far left) to radical. She has said it herself, admitting what I have said about her: Sixties (a throwback to idealist as well radical times, in fact, Forty Years Ago, the peak of "Change" [tm] and strife, 1968-9).

"The crime happened on US soil"

Actually, Rudi, the crime happened on a military facility and among military personnel -- this is a military, not a civilian justice issue.

The reason I noted your remark is that it actually contains a kernel of truth in defense of the otherwise stupid decision by the Obama administration, not with Hasan, but with the September 11 terrorists, to try them in a civilian court in New York City.

Thanks for setting it straight. That's what this website is all about.

Mr Kristol seems to think bringing a trial and researching what occurred and setting prophylaxses against it happening again, are exclusive of one another. They arent. All are going on as we speak, and in depth.

Even Bill Kristol, with his track record of partisan hackery, and being so wrong so often, deserves to be quoted in context. And that context here is about Kristol trying to suggest that Napolitano doesn't care about what went wrong or how to prevent it in the future - a suggestion which is patently absurd.

Yes context makes all the difference in the world. Sound bites are often merely propaganda from biased sources. If you want to be informed don't trust a sound bite from Think Progress or from Rush Limbaugh, do your own research. Don't let a pundit or forum poster convince you of something without a factual backup and/or a contextual reference. Just because a person can record or copy and paste a soundbite doesn't make it a valid argument, it just means that someone spend more time in selective editing than you spent in looking for the truth if you accept it without question.

.He's a dishonest schlep!

I think the word you want there is schmuck. "Shlep" means to carry a lot of stuff or heavy stuff, and it's a verb. (As in, "I had to shlep my stuff five blocks from the car to my apartment.")

But I do take your meaning, and I agree. :-)

Consistent, though "liberal" is being too loose with the language; she is "progressive" (far left) to radical. She has said it herself, admitting what I have said about her: Sixties (a throwback to idealist as well radical times, in fact, Forty Years Ago, the peak of "Change" [tm] and strife, 1968-9).

This is also, as CO's quote of Tidbits was, a misquote -- or in this a non-quote. I am a progressive; that is what I have said. I am very liberal; that is what I have said. I have never said I am "far left," and indeed I vigorously disputed that label a few days ago in a discussion with Polimom about the meaning and accuracy of the term "hard left."

I have also never described myself or my politics as "radical" -- and I and they are not. I *have* said that I am from the '60s (indeed, I believe those were my exact words). I have said on several occasions that I came of age in the 1960s and that my beliefs are informed by the values of that era. Note also I did not "admit" this. I said it. I feel lucky and grateful to have been "present at the creation" (so to speak) of the contemporary movement for peace and justice (which encompasses so much more than just Vietnam War protests), and to have been raised by parents who believed in those values and instilled them in me and in my brother, and the word "admit" is entirely inaccurate.

Quoting it again, this: "Kathy is, indeed. Consistent, though "liberal" is being too loose with the language; she is "progressive" (far left) to radical. She has said it herself, admitting what I have said about her:" is a venal, heinous, shameful distortion and misrepresentation of what I have said about myself on TMV.

"Too loose with the language" indeed. Take a look in the mirror, DLS -- or do I have to play Natalie Cole for you again?

You are too kind, JSpencer. I would have said ROTFL.

Hey Kathy take a look at definition number
two...........below............but it is fun to play with the
words.........and schmuck works even better.

schlep or *schlepp* also *shlep* (shlp) /Slang/
/v./ *schlepped* also *shlepped*, *schlep·ping* or *schlepp·ing* also
*shlep·ping*, *schleps* or *schlepps* also *shleps*
/v.//tr./
To carry clumsily or with difficulty; lug: schlepped a shopping bag
around town.
/v.//intr./
To move slowly or laboriously: schlepped around with the twins in a
stroller.
/n./
*1. * An arduous journey.
*2. * A clumsy or stupid person.

Hey, I didn't know that second def. Thanks for learning me something!

Kattenberg says above that she "came of age in the 60s" and that her "beliefs are informed by the values of that era.'

OK. I came of age in the 60s also, and I was deeply involved in the civil rights struggles of that time, among other things. Perhaps I missed something but I don;t recall the "values of that era" including blatant dishonesty. Ah well, maybe I was just lucky enough to have parents who were just working stiffs incapable of instilling such lofty values in me.

John Burke -

"Perhaps I missed something but I don;t recall the "values of that era" including blatant dishonesty."

We're usually a bit more subtle when we call each other lying a**h***s here.

My suggestiton: learn a little more about Kathy's personal story before you imply that she is some sort of rich, arrogant liberal...she is liberal, but the rest of your assumption doesn't fit. You will also find that we defend our own here, even those with whom we disagree. One of Kathy's major defenders yesterday when she was personally attacked was Leonidas, a certified well-right-of-center commenter.

Welcome to TMV. It's different here, but you might like it if you enjoy intelligent discussion of serious issues mixed with a little good humor.

"Kristol believes the priority should be researching what happened and preventing it from occurring again."

if that's what he meant, then I wholeheartedly agree. It's about time we investigated how all branches of government have pursued the "war on terror." How have ALL of the programs seeking to identify and neutralize plots or individuals worked? What are the successes and failures of the changes made since 2001. And yes, if our systems are not working, how can we make them more effective? Ultimately, covering our eyes and ears to avoid uncovering unpleasant facts hurts us all.

"And yes, if our systems are not working, how can we make them more effective?"
Measuring programs by their effectiveness: now that's a truly radical idea.

When the facts are sorted out the "Major" will be determined an Enemy Combatant
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”
HE DOES NOT DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL, JUST A MILITARY EXECUTION IS WARRANTED.

";-)"

Moderate, yes -- ordinary, basic American center-right. Mushy, hell, no.

* * *

"I am a progressive; that is what I have said. I am very liberal; that is what I have said. I have never said I am 'far left,' and indeed I vigorously disputed that label a few days ago in a discussion with Polimom about the meaning and accuracy of the term 'hard left.'"

Well, we know what you are, at least on this site. And,

"a venal, heinous, shameful distortion and misrepresentation"

is not what I did, or what I do.

"Take a look in the mirror, DLS"

My critics are routinely in need of this, especially when they engage in projection(!).