Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Courting Terrorism

I got this email from the ACLU. And I'm curious about the numbers. If what they claim is true, it certainly undermines the argument for military trials.


  1. First of all, I doubt the ACLU's figures. If they are true, then all the more reason we should have miltary tribunals. Why? Because giant trials for terror leaders could cost billions. The trial of Khalid Sheik Muhammed was estimated at 400 million dollars, and could take a year.

    I get what the ACLU is doing, they are trying to enrich lawyers. And that is what the Democrats and Obama are trying to do as well. Why do you think they donate so much to the Democrats?

  2. I want to know more about the convictions cited, because the details matter. For example, how many overall cases were presented to secure those convictions? And what are the details of the cases? Are we comparing apples to apples here? And how are these convictions standing up on appeal?

    As to the cost, if the civilian courts are more successful at securing convictions, I'll support them. It's not as if the military tribunals do not come with their own costs. And I would prefer that military leaders spend their time actually doing their jobs and leading troops.

    And I support the ACLU, despite some of the cases they choose. I do so because I believe that they have truly defined their mission and pursue it despite the popularity (or lack thereof) of a particular case. I believe that is honorable and I commend them for doing so. As to why they donate to Democrats, I expect it's because they believe the Democrats are more likely to support them in return. That's hardly nefarious.

  3. You provide some good facts. I can only say that I stopped supporting the ACLU when they defended NAMBLA's right to advertise how to seduce young boys online.

    The "pay for play" business in Washington is getting too expensive for us. It is expensive because lawyers want their "take", big green (Al Gore, George Soros, GE, MSNBC) want it also, big pharma, big union, ect ect. We are paying for this sort of activity, and it is our money, not theirs. You are right, this is why they support the Democrats, and why I do not.

    Military tribunals have been the rule since FDR tried German spies back in WW2. If it was good enough for one of the greatest Democrat Presidents, it should be good enough for all of us.

  4. I'm not sure what to make of the ACLU's decision regarding NAMBLA in this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA), but at first pass, it's repulsive.

    As for "pay for play," it doesn't seem to know political bounds. The party in power gets the attention. And there are just as many dirty GOP hands as Dem hands.

    And the trials? I'm almost at the point where I'm ready to execute anyone accused of terrorism (including domestic terrorism), so I'm not exactly the right person to weigh in. (I'm ready to add child molesters, rapists and drug dealers to that list, too.)