The New Republic

I usually don't play this game, but this passage just begs to be re-styled thus: "Why are so many liberal [democrats] reluctant to concede that there is an intricate international network of ideological gangsters who recognize each other as [b'nei Israel]? These brothers do not define themselves by nation. They define themselves by religion, although there are many hundreds of [thousands] of [Jews] who are defined out--and define themselves out--of the bloody fraternity of the faithful. Sometimes, they too are stigmatized as enemies, which means they are also targets." The first two-and-a-half sentences could be something straight out of Mein Kampf with the appropriate changes of emphasis from Muslims to Jews; the latter part of the passage is not quite so vile, but would not be out of sorts in the collected speeches of Theodore Bilbo, Charles Lindbergh or Joseph P. Kennedy warning the "good" American Jews against the folly of their co-religionists who want to overthrow Jim Crow or get American entangled in a foreign war. I hope Mr. Peretz is mindful of the tone of his words the next time he thinks it fit to propound on the subject of civilian trials for suspected terrorists.

- wildboy

February 23, 2010 at 2:36pm

This is getting tiresome, I don't care if they have military or civilian trials, I have enough faith in the American justice system in either case. Simply asserting civilian trials are cosmically stupid, without offering up evidence why they can't work (when we just sentenced one of the idiots to life without parole just yesterday, in Civilian court), is making you look like a hysterical old biddy. No, our civilian justice system, which has survived since the founding of the Republic, is not equipped to handle these scary boogeymen, and to think otherwise isn't just stupid, not it is Cosmically stupid. Why not go whole hog and say Universally stupid? Or infinity stupid? Maybe that is not enough, maybe it is infinity squared stupid. Marty, you really got to tone down on the snark. I can feel your blood pressure spiking all the way down here. It isn't what you are saying, I agree with you about the nature of jihad, and I am perfectly comfortable with military trials, you seriously need to tone it the f down. Of course you bring you enemies to the courthouse. We brought Milosevic, Saddam, Chemical Ali, Goerring, Tojo, Speers, etc. all to courthouses. It is the completely dismissive tones of assholes like McCarthy (he won a big case once, now thinks he should be the one to make all the decisions, what kind of arrogant asshole suggests creating a whole new system of justice for a bunch of ignorant middle eastern goat fuckers? Oooohhh, a National Security Court, oooh, sounds impressive, but what he really means is Kangaroo court, we all know how that works out) The reason I have faith in Military trials are that Uniformed Officers are the people duty bound and honor bound to uphold the law. If I were innocent, I would want a Military trial, since I believe these people would be less swayed by emotion. If you can make a reasonable case why military trials would be more expedient or logical, make it, but stop with the hysterics please.

- blackton

February 23, 2010 at 2:57pm

This is poppycock. "Jihadism" may not violate any law. But when jihadists engage in terrorism, their actions violate scores of civil laws. Both Western civilization in general and American law in particular have for centuries balanced treating some acts as both war and crimes. The foundational example in Western history is piracy: the pirate is engaged in an act of war, and may be fought with the full range of a state's military force. Yet when captured, pirates have often been subjected to civilian criminal trials and executed like common thieves and murderers. This model of combining war and justice was so successful that after essentially eradicating piracy in European-controlled waters, it was used even more effectively against slave traders to end the global slave trade. Anyway, some issues Marty needs to address in the course of his continued advocacy on behalf of freeing terrorists from answering for their crimes: 1. To date, terrorists tried by military tribunals have received lighter sentences than those tried by civilian courts. Should we not prefer greater punishment, rather than lesser? 2. Should those who provide material support for banned terrorist organizations be tried in civilian courts, as they are now with great success, or would Marty also send Hamas fundraisers to his gulag? Marty has already rejected the idea of judging jihadists on the basis of discrete actions, so what grounds would he use to distinguish between jihad-related actions that will be subject to criminal prosecution and those that earn a one-way ticket to an internment camp? 3. Would Marty have removed John Allen Muhammad, Timothy McVeigh, or (had he survived) Joe Stack from civilian justice system to his star chamber? If in any of these cases he would not have, why not? 4. Civilian law was once widely believed to be inadequate to fighting organized crime. These fears proved false. What specifically makes today's chicken littles right, when their predecessors of 60 years ago, making in many cases precisely the same arguments, were wrong? 5. Jihadists regard themselves as legitimate and honorable soldiers. If we have the choice, why respect their claims to military dignity? Why not treat the terrorist with the contempt of a mere criminal's trial and the shame of eventual anonymous burial in a potters field? 6. Marty's outrage oscillates between relatively calm calls for military trials and hysterical arguments such as today's that if taken seriously apply equally against military as against civilian trials. Clarity, please: Is Marty advocating military rather than civilian trials, or is he advocating some kind of actual star chamber, gulag, or concentration camp system with no form of "trial" attached? In other words, is Marty arguing for a different kind of trial, or for summary justice without trial? 7. Finally, whether Marty is calling for military trials for some terrorists but not others, or whether he is calling for gulags for some terrorists but not others, who does Marty believe should make the choice between which terrorists face which treatment?

- rhubarbs

February 23, 2010 at 3:25pm

Hang on, rhubs. Muhammad, McVeigh, etc., go into the civilian system because they are US citizens. Zazi was there in part because he's a legal resident. They also committed their crimes here. KSM and his ilk are not citizens and did not commit crimes in the US. By what reasoning should they go into the civilian system? The same system the shoplifter goes before? This Obama fellow specifically said they should not in the campaign. BTW, as much as I abhor the terorists, we should NOT prefer greater or lesser punishment, we should prefer coherence in our policies, and a functioning civilian and military justice systems.

- butchie b

February 23, 2010 at 4:41pm

butchie, shoplifting is a misdemeanor, and you know full well that equating that with a Federal felony just ain't right. Mexican drug lords in the US are far more dangerous than these mutts, are you advocating military trials for them? And what about this Star cham...oops National Security Court? You in favor of that bit of lunacy? I am all for coherence in our policies, but Bush had 7 years to get its shit together, and you expect Obama to get it sorted out, in the face of Republican hysteria, in no time? The Republicans had their chance, they f-ed it up royally, so let Obama do what he wants, if it fails hold him accountable, but you and i know it won't, which scares the hell out of Republicans.

- blackton

February 23, 2010 at 4:53pm

butchie, I take your point, but Nidal Hasan is also a citizen, and Marty has called for him to be treated as a captured foreigner. Further, Marty's argument here about the peculiar threat of jihadists does not allow for a logically coherent distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Muhammad, for example, identified himself at the time and repeatedly thereafter as a Muslim engaged in jihad. Nothing in Marty's argument here would allow us to treat Muhammad any differently than KSM, and yet Marty has never objected to the civilian criminal trial and punishment of Muhammad. But to answer you directly, KSM absolutely did commit crimes in the United States. The 9/11 attacks happened on U.S. soil. Those attacks violated scores of federal criminal laws, in some cases thousands of times over. KSM stands accused of conspiracy to commit those crimes. If KSM had killed 3,000 Americans in the course of running a narcotics conspiracy from abroad instead of a terrorist conspiracy, no one would question the legitimacy of his capture, extradition, and trial in the United States for violating U.S. law wherever his ass happened to be planted at the time the crimes were committed. The nationality or physical location of the accused are not material to the question of whether he should stand trial for violating U.S. law. We routinely try foreigners for violating U.S. laws while physically located overseas. Furthermore, KSM in particular was not captured by the U.S. military, was not captured on any battlefield, and the bulk of the crimes with which he might be charged are violations of civilian criminal law, with civilians the majority of his intended victims. He's not a soldier, nor the commissioned officer of any army. None of the events or facts that would trigger the priority of military over civilian justice apply to KSM. Now, Marty has not been clear with us about whether he is advocating military trials or some kind of American star chamber or gulag. So the fact that KSM's case obviously calls for civilian, not military, justice does not necessarily counter Marty's argument, if indeed he is calling for some form of summary punishment rather than military justice.

- rhubarbs

February 23, 2010 at 5:11pm

But Butchie, isn't the efficacy of convictions one of the most important arguments pro or con on the issue of terror trials? If we are arresting suspected terrorists, we do want to have them convicted and put in jail for long periods of time or even executed if their crimes and position in the hierarchy warrant it, right? And our system is not mechanical, with US citizens and legal residents automatically sent to civilian courts and non-citizens automatically sent to military tribunals -- the Military Commissions Act doesn't require Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees to be sent to a military commission, but merely leaves that as an option for the government. In fact, the US government sent And the government's track record in the eight years since military commissions have existed has not been very good, while the civilian courts are batting 1.000%. And, by the day, the US government sent US citizen Jose Padilla to a military jail with the intention of bringing him in front of a military commission before they switched gears and put him in the civilian system (out of fear that his whole case would be thrown out by the courts) and put US citizen Yaser Hamdi in Guantanamo without charging him with any crime, before sending him to Saudi Arabia in exchange for rescinding his US citizenship. So it's not like they haven't tried to get US citizens in front of military commissions -- and I don't hear Marty or Andy McCarthy complaining about why the treatment of Padilla and Hamdi was wrong. Once they get it straight who they want to try in front of military commissions, the defenders of the military commissions system need to do us all a big favor and directly address the following questions: 1. Why are military commissions preferable for anyone who is suspected of terrorism, given their terrible track record at actually convicting terrorists? If there is a good explanation for why the terrible track record should be ignored because the military commissions are now a well-functioning apparatus, please provide one in detail. 2. Why are civilian courts considered per se inferior to trying and convicting terrorists? What are the exact dangers to national security of trying terrorists in civilian courts -- possible disclosure of state secrets, possible exposure of government agents, possible Chicago Seven-style theatrics that would lead to public sympathy for terrorists, etc? If so, explain why none of these seemed to be present in all of the other previous terrorist prosecutions and convictions. Andy McCarthy made one such allegation in the linked article about the disclosure of Bin Laden's identity as a conspirator in the first World Trade Center attack that was passed on to terror defendants, but the defense lawyer points out that he never sought a protective order for the list -- which means that it was his own fault as a prosecutor for not taking the right step to keep this information confidential. Something better is needed from the defenders of military commissions than a plea to save them from their own prosecutorial incompetence. 3. Is there any reason to think that prosecution by military commissions would be better at deterring terrorist acts than prosecution by civilian courts? Is there any evidence to this effect from terrorists themselves, or from the general milieu from which such terrorists emerge? Again, we want evidence. 4. Is it possible that military commissions may lack some form of legitimacy as lawfully constituted tribunals, given their prior history? If not, some evidence as to why the prior history of such commissions and their long record of being found wanting under the US Constitution should not harm their legitimacy either to the US public or to the broader world public, whose cooperation and sympathy is at least tangentially necessary to help catch terrorists. 5. Are there circumstances in which US civilians or legal residents should be tried before military commissions? If so, where do you draw the line in a Constitutionally acceptable manner? Once the defenders of military commissions start to provide coherent answers to the above questions, this debate will remain a lot of smoke, mirrors and bile.

- wildboy

February 23, 2010 at 5:11pm

“Why are so many liberal Democrats reluctant to concede that there is an intricate international network of ideological gangsters who recognize each other as ikhwan? These brothers do not define themselves by nation. They define themselves by religion, although there are many hundreds of millions of Muslims who are defined out--and define themselves out--of the bloody fraternity of the faithful.” Marty Which wildboy translates as: "Why are so many liberal [democrats] reluctant to concede that there is an intricate international network of ideological gangsters who recognize each other as [b'nei Israel]? These brothers do not define themselves by nation. They define themselves by religion, although there are many hundreds of [thousands] of [Jews] who are defined out--and define themselves out--of the bloody fraternity of the faithful. Sometimes, they too are stigmatized as enemies, which means they are also targets." Then he goes on to state: “The first two-and-a-half sentences could be something straight out of Mein Kampf with the appropriate changes of emphasis from Muslims to Jews;…” Only in wildass’ wild and bigoted imagining does this passage come out of “Mein Kampf.” As he even read that hateful book? Hitler didn’t hate Jews because they were “gangsters” he hated them because they were pacifists and because he believed they used their pacifism to “dominate other” nations. Now, no one has ever accused the Jihadists of being practicing pacifists. In fact the Muslim Brotherhood too hate Jews because they “work to dominate the world” through commerce and other underhanded means. If wild ass is going to offer a comparison between two networks of people he had better know what each network stand for. What our wild ass misses is Marty's valid point that "here is an intricate international network of ideological gangsters who recognize each other as ikhwan? These brothers do not define themselves by nation..." Jews, on the other hand, do define themselves as "a nation." Comparing Jews like Peretz to Nazis is what brain dead know-nothings like wild ass do best. It’s difficult to take anything he says seriously.

- jdyer

February 23, 2010 at 11:16pm

“So it's not like they haven't tried to get US citizens in front of military commissions -- and I don't hear Marty or Andy McCarthy complaining about why the treatment of Padilla and Hamdi was wrong.” Leave it to wildass to feel sorry for a couple of lethal traitors. Padilla and company got better than they deserved. During WW2 they would have been summarily shot. Canada and the UK were especially good at that game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_traitors_during_World_War_Two but we weren’t far behind either. “The Germans did not limit their attempts to obtain information from the United States to the establishment of espionage nets on the periphery. Throughout the war attempts were made to establish agents within the United States itself. Speaking generally, it can be reported that these efforts failed. In most cases the agents were either apprehended before they could commence activities, or their operations were sufficiently well controlled to neutralize them. The reasons for their failure ranged all the way from carelessness–as in the case of Werner Janowski, an agent landed on the coast of [southern shore of the Gaspe Peninsula, Quebec] Canada [by U-518] early in November [9 Nov.] 1942, who was caught within a few hours through his stupidity in throwing away a box of Belgian matches in a hotel room and otherwise arousing the suspicions of civilians–to voluntary surrender on the part of the agent. Two of the eight saboteurs who landed in June 1942 gave themselves up to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and thus precipitated the arrest of the others. [On 13 June 1942, 4 agents were landed from U-584 on Amagansett, Long Island, New York; and on 17 June 1942, 4 agents from U-202 were landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, south of Jacksonville, Florida. A subsequent military trial of the 8 captured agents resulted in 6 death sentences, one life imprisonment and one 30-year sentence. On the recommendation of the Justice Department, President Truman granted executive clemency on condition of deportation to the two surviving agents who were deported to the American Zone of Germany in 1948].” http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm Also, let’s not forget the execution of the Rosenberg’s for espionage. Few thought at the time to try these traitors in civilian courts and give them constitutional protections.

- jdyer

February 23, 2010 at 11:38pm

According to wiki: "Al-Qa'ida, is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989/early 1990.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm[8] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad." It appears to me that Marty simply repeated the same facts but much more effectively when he said: "...here is an intricate international network of ideological gangsters who recognize each other as ikhwan? These brothers do not define themselves by nation. They define themselves by religion, although there are many hundreds of millions of Muslims who are defined out--and define themselves out--of the bloody fraternity of the faithful.” Maybe wildboy resents the jihadists being called "gangsters". It's stereotyping and unfair to the jihadist and attributes to him such characteristics as violence and anarchy. Clearly an hyperbolic type of discourse.

- noga1

February 24, 2010 at 6:56am

Main Entry: 1war Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\ Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse Date: 12th century 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end c

Jackson, glad that you're off your meds and back to defending Marty's foul language. I'm not going to get into your analysis of Nazi views of the Jews, other than to say that just about anyone who knows anything about Nazism would know that they called Jews "gangsters" all the time and claimed that Jews did not define themselves by "nation" (i.e., as Germans, Austrians or Poles) but as a people apart bent on destroying Aryan civilization through violence, both physical (as in Soviet Russia) and economic (as in the Great Depression). And yes, I did read Mein Kampf as part of an undergrad history course -- that's permitted in this country, you know. As for your views on Padilla and Hamdi and their "lethal treason", a couple thoughts. First, do you have any evidence that they killed anyone? If you do, you apparently know more than the US government on this subject. Second, it is exceedingly silly to compare their treatment with the treatment of spies during World War II because the US was in a DECLARED WAR against a sovereign foreign state at the time. The historic laws of war that applied to the conflict between the US and Nazi Germany, going back several centuries, allowed countries to detain and execute non-uniformed spies and saboteurs as a matter of course. Of course, these recognized laws of war were rather abused during World War II (especially by the Germans), which led to the passage of something called the Fourth Geneva Convention to spell out the treatment of non-uniformed prisoners and non-state combatants by its signatory governments -- of which the US was proudly one of the first. Hamdi and Padilla, despite being US citizens, didn't even get the protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention that should have been accorded to them as unlawful combatants -- in Padilla's case, he was kept in camera at the Charleston Naval Brig for months without being charged with anything, including unlawful combatant status! Third, the Rosenbergs are a great example of US citizens who betrayed their country and spied for a hostile power, were tried and convicted in a CIVILIAN COURT and sentenced for their crimes. Same with every other US citizen who ever spied for a foreign country since World War II -- they did not go to a military brig or Guantanamo, but to a civilian court and then to a civilian jail (or a civilian electric chair). But let me lay out my real reason for why I'm troubled by the nature of the fight against Al Qaeda and the treatment of both foreigners and American citizens by our government in the course of that fight -- because it sets a precedent for other times and other cases. No matter how much we swear that we are just fighting Muslim fanatics and everyone else can rest easy, and that the only precedents that are are applicable to Islam and no other religion, you and I and everyone else know that our system of law doesn't work that way. There are no laws specifically applicable to radical Muslims but not to others -- there may be attempts to limit jurisdiction of military commissions to Al Qaeda and Taliban members and their "material supporters", but all of the actions that are taken to that end create precedent (especially when those actions predated the creation of said military commissions). Which means that, if the United States and Israel ever had a real falling out in the future, you and I and everyone who is a friend to Israel and Israeli causes should think about what sort of advocacy would be legal and what sort of advocacy would be criminalized; whether money collected through a synagogue or the local Jewish federation for Israelis in Hebron or Ariel would be material support to foreign terrorists that would land their supporters in front of a new military commission; whether an American Jew getting off the plane from Tel Aviv could be arrested at the airport, taken to a military jail and held without charge for months or years on the suspicion that he was part of a conspiracy to bomb the US embassy due to America's opposition to Israel's annexation of the West Bank, the expulsion of Arabs from Jerusalem or some other dystopian (but not wholly fantastical) future scenario. You, Marty, Noga and the rest of the gang can walk around free and easy in the knowledge that the precedents set in the War on Terror will never be used against American Jews who may some day believe that their homeland is betraying Israel and that Israel needs their support. I'm not so happy go lucky.

- wildboy

February 24, 2010 at 10:03am

In classical Islamic thought and in al Qaeda-type terminology, the Muslims speak of the Islamic umma which as I understand it means "people" or "nation" (there is nearly identical term in both Biblical and modern Hebrew - אומה ('umah) - which also means "nation" or "people). The neat separation between religion and nation doesn't really exist in classical Islam. Indeed the great theorist of radical Islamism, Sayyad Qutb sees the Western concept of separation of church and state as heresy and blasphemy. As Bernard Lewis has wryly noted on a number of occasions, to most of the Islamic world, especially the Islamists, the separation of church and state was a Western invention needed to treat a Western disease. The Islamic world was not a party to the Treaty of Westphalia which in effect created the modern concept of the nation-state. The Western concept of the nation-state was introduced into or imposed on the Islamic world during the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. Tellingly, some of the strongest Arab advocates and adherents to the idea of the nation-state and Arab nationalism were Arab Christians who saw the nation-state and Arab nationalism as a way to escape their dhimmi status and be on equal par with their Muslim "countrymen". One of the major points of dissension between Hamas-Gaza and some of the even more radical groups in Gaza is Hamas' claim that they are striving for a Palestinian state as opposed to an Islamic state. Hamas defends their Islamic bona fides and run Gaza with an Islamist flavor. It's well known that Gazan Christians are a shrinking entity and are a heavily oppressed minority in Gaza, with their churches & bookstore burned and some of their leaders "disappearing". As I have suggested in the past, I strongly suggest y'all read Bernard Lewis' succinct and informative The Multiple Identities of the Middle East (here). Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

February 24, 2010 at 10:21am

wildboy “Jackson, glad that you're off your meds and back to defending Marty's foul language. I'm not going to get into your analysis of Nazi views of the Jews, other than to say that just about anyone who knows anything about Nazism would know that they called Jews "gangsters" all the time and claimed that Jews did not define themselves by "nation" (i.e., as Germans, Austrians or Poles) but as a people apart bent on destroying Aryan civilization through violence, both physical (as in Soviet Russia) and economic (as in the Great Depression). And yes, I did read Mein Kampf as part of an undergrad history course -- that's permitted in this country, you know.” The brave an ignorant wildass is back with another sophomoric history lesson. Your last comment is irrelevant as no one claimed that it was illegal to read Mein Kampf. You still haven’t shown me that you read it, btw. You first comment is irrelevant since we are not discussing my meds. Thankfully, I am not off my meds since if I stopped taking low dose aspirin I’d be in a lot of trouble. How about you? Have you stopped taking your psychomedication? Moreover, there is nothing foul about the language Marty used, (it’s your language that is foul, wild ass) and even if he did, it tells me a lot about you that because he is a Jew you came back at him with charges of his being a “Nazi.” This is exactly what antisemites do. They call every Jew who fights back either a Nazi or a Shylock. With each post you show yourself to be a member of the tribe of antisemites. You should join David Duke’s little clan, you would be in your element there. As for Nazis calling Jews gangsters, that is the kindest thing they said. If they had really believed it they would have made an alliance with them. Moreover, it doesn’t matter if the Nazis believed that Jews are a nation or not. (Antisemites don’t believe that, they don’t believe that Jews have any legitimacy (just as anti-Zioniost antisemites do today) and nationhood would confer legitimacy upon them. In any case all of this is beside the point, wildass, Jew believe they are a nation and that is what Marty was getting it. Marty’s comments were right on and you are just a creepy foulmouthed Jew hater who is in love with the enemies of Israel.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 10:33am

Wild ass: “As for your views on Padilla and Hamdi and their "lethal treason", a couple thoughts. First, do you have any evidence that they killed anyone?” Treason is not defined by the murder they may have or have not committed: the Constitution Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 10:38am

Good Lord, Jackson, you are in a lather today. How they hell does someone "prove" over the Internet that they have read a book? Can you "prove" to me that you are Jewish, or anything else for that matter? Your name-calling is getting tedious and it's just a substitute for engaging in a serious discussion about military law versus civilian law in the War on Terror. But if you want to criticize the behavior of "creepy foulmouthed Jew haters" and "antisemites", feel free to do it until your nose bleeds.

- wildboy

February 24, 2010 at 10:45am

One other thing, Jackson -- whatever I can and can't tell about you over the Net, I can tell that you are not a lawyer. Neither Hamdi nor Padilla were ever charged with "treason" -- in Padilla's case, it was three counts of conspiracy (for murder and to materially aid terrorists) and in Hamdi's case, he was never charged with anything at all. BTW, none of the charges against Padilla carried the death sentence -- the conspiracy for murder is a life sentence charge. Padilla received 17 years, for months in prison from a civil jury in 2007, which case is under appeal. Hamdi is walking around free in Saudi Arabia after agreeing to forfeit his US citizenship in exchange for an otherwise unconditional release from Gitmo.

- wildboy

February 24, 2010 at 10:59am

wildboy “Good Lord, Jackson, you are in a lather today. How they hell does someone "prove" over the Internet that they have read a book? Can you "prove" to me that you are Jewish, or anything else for that matter?” You prove that you read and understood a book by your comments. Your comments on Hitler’s book show the opposite. Your very use of the analogy for something Peretz, a Jew, said shows what a anti-Jewish bigot you are. Would you have brought up the Nazi analogy if the commenter had been, say, Andrew C. McCarthy, the former prosecutor? I doubt it. “Your name-calling is getting tedious and it's just a substitute for engaging in a serious discussion about military law versus civilian law in the War on Terror.” In other words you can’t address honestly the fact that treason is a capital offense even if the traitor hadn’t killed anyone. “But if you want to criticize the behavior of "creepy foulmouthed Jew haters" and "antisemites", feel free to do it until your nose bleeds.” This from someone who implied that Marty was a Nazi.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 12:42pm

Jackson, I would have absolutely brought up the Nazi analogy if Andrew McCarthy had used words like Martin Peretz's. As well as the analogy comparing his words to anti-Semites like Lindbergh, Kennedy and Bilbo who told American Jews to mind their own business and not advocate on behalf of civil rights or foreign entanglements because they would just invite bad consequences for themselves otherwise. I never implied Marty was a Nazi (as if that would convince you!), and I have never compared any Jews to Nazis. If you want to make stuff up, feel free, but you need to show proof otherwise. What I said was that Marty's writing about Islamists sounded just like Nazi descriptions of Jews, which is an admonition to a fellow Jew to watch his words. It's similar to the admonitions given by Akiva Eldar to Effie Eitam for referring to Israeli Arabs as a "cancer" or the admonitions given by many other Israeli politicians to Meir Kahane for advocating the mass deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. Criticize all you want, but when a Jew uses language reminiscent of the Nazis he or she needs to be called out for it. Shalom.

- wildboy

February 24, 2010 at 12:52pm

wildboy “One other thing, Jackson -- whatever I can and can't tell about you over the Net, I can tell that you are not a lawyer. Neither Hamdi nor Padilla were ever charged with "treason" –“ They should have been. And you should know by now that the charges leveled at defendants are often motivated by political as well as legal factors. Too often the prosecutor will make deals in order to get information out of them. “Hamdi is walking around free in Saudi Arabia after agreeing to forfeit his US citizenship in exchange for an otherwise unconditional release from Gitmo.” Of course, he is until the next time he takes up arms against the US.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 12:54pm

"One other thing, Jackson -- whatever I can and can't tell about you over the Net, I can tell that you are not a lawyer." wild ass And I can tell that you are a fake moralist who preaches morality without a license.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 12:55pm

wildboy "Jackson, I would have absolutely brought up the Nazi analogy if Andrew McCarthy had used words like Martin Peretz's." I don't believe you, wildass since the only time I have ever seen you bring up a Nazi analogy is with regards to Jewish posters.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 12:57pm

In the future save the Nazi analogy for groups who are actually engaged in physically exterminating other groups of people. There are still, alas, to many of those around. Save them for Rwanda, or for the Khmer Rouge, the Iraqi gassing of the Kurds, or the war against the Biafrans, or the Sudanese slaughter of many of its Black populations, or even the Islamicists in Algeria who slaughtered tens of thousands of villagers there. Putting up a fight against Muslim fanatics who want to kill tens of thousands of their enemies, non-Muslims as well as Muslims is not a sign that they are “Nazis.” People who defend mass murderers, on the other hand, are fellow travelers.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 1:04pm

wildboy's comments about precedent are of highest importance. Now, I'm sure that mere advocacy on behalf of the Zionist cause could never be criminalized in America, just as mere advocacy and fundraising on behalf of Irish freedom was never criminali ... oh, crap. Turns out the U.S. government does criminalize advocacy of of foreign causes, even those overtly friendly to the United States, and has done so regularly since at least 1912. Whoops! But more seriously, new legal tools enacted to get at the worst of the worst are always eventually used against ordinary criminals. Always. This has happened with literally every legal innovation in American history. Conspiracy laws, RICO, even much federal civil rights law. When passed we're told that prosecutors just need this one special tool for the tiny minority of the hardest cases against the absolute worst threats to the republic. But soon, often within months of the new law's passage, prosecutors begin to use their new tools against people further down the list. Inevitably, RICO charges are mainly used against ordinary criminals, small-time crooks, and even sometimes people who just happen to piss off particular prosecutors, not against mobsters. So if we really have a pressing need to create some kind of star chamber or gulag, we need to admit up front that it will be turned against ordinary American citizens who are not involved in terrorism, or jihadism, or who aren't even Muslims. Step one would probably be sending people suspected of ties to foreign mafias to Gitmo or wherever, maybe for a little waterboarding. Then narcotics middlemen, because even though they don't actually have connections with anyone in Medellin or Sinaloa, their boss or their boss's boss does, and as such they're really not all that different from Najibullah Zazi. Then it will be white-collar criminals, corporate fraudsters who transfer money internationally to launder it. Within a few years, a decade at the outside, the new star chamber will be the primary venue in which the federal government prosecutes that it considers to be high-value criminals. If we're willing to accept that the next time an American Jew is even suspected of passing restricted information to an Israeli, he will be disappeared down Marty's anti-jihadi rabbit hole, then fine: go ahead and create Marty's star chambers, his gulag, his death camps, or whatever he's proposing, if he ever gets around to telling us what that is. We have a moral imperative to be honest with ourselves about what we are doing. A consequence is not "unintended" if a reasonable person could have predicted it, and no reasonable person could possibly fail to predict the eventual mainstreaming of whatever "special" system we create to deal with suspected terrorists.

- rhubarbs

February 24, 2010 at 1:08pm

rhubarbs "wildboy's comments about precedent are of highest importance. Now, I'm sure that mere advocacy on behalf of the Zionist cause could never be criminalized in America, just as mere advocacy and fundraising on behalf of Irish freedom was never criminali ... oh, crap." So the law has been misused, is this news? The law has been misused since there were laws first established. What the fuck is your point, vegetable head? Is your point that we shouldn’t prosecute jihadists or Cosa Nostra figures, or drug lords because the same laws can be used to prosecute white collar crime? This is a post of very little importance.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 3:08pm

Rhubarbs, thanks for the kind words. And Jackson, I'm glad you live in a world of infinite good faith in which laws may get misused, but never against anyone you care about. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, Pastor Bonhoeffer.

- wildboy

February 24, 2010 at 5:43pm

wildboy "And Jackson, I'm glad you live in a world of infinite good faith in which laws may get misused, but never against anyone you care about. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, Pastor Bonhoeffer." You just can't stop using Nazi era analogies, can you, wildasshole? It is you who are trying to emulate Bonhoffer for some reason. Do you really think the situation of Muslims in the US or the West is identitcal to those of Jews in pre war Europe? You are either an idiot or an ignoramus.

- jdyer

February 24, 2010 at 6:57pm

Wildboy, I shall attempt to answer. 1. Again, probability of conviction is beside the point. Some suspected terrorists, especially those rounded up on foreign battlefields, should not get full US constututional protections. 2. Yes, as a 21-year veteran of the intelligence system, I worry that trying these folks in civilian courts may either reveal sources and methods or disallow evidence based on the gov't not wanting to reveal it in open court. Further, hearsay rules can keep out much evidence that might be admitted in military tribunals. 3. Deterrence is not the point. I have never made the claim that either forum would deter terrorists, because I don't believe it matters to them. 4. Is it possible? Sure, but the current system has been passed by Congress and upheld by the Courts. Sorry if the Euros don't like it. US policy should be made in Washington alone. 5. No.

- butchie b

February 26, 2010 at 5:07pm