The 9/11 trial Clueless Moment of the Day

posted at 10:12 am on November 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

One might expect a major media outlet like McClatchy to engage an editor or two, even for its featured columnists.  One might also expect said columnist to do a little dot-connecting on a subject before writing about it, especially when casting the upcoming federal trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court instead of a military tribunal as something that will, in Leonard Pitt’s words, show that “we can still afford to act like America.” And what precedent does Pitts use to declare this trial a restorative for the American way? Three guesses:

It’s worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court. After burning away 11 million lives, the leaders of the Nazi regime found themselves facing not summary execution, but a trial before a military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

As prosecutor Robert Jackson put it: “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.”

And when the trials were over and the verdicts delivered — death or imprisonment for most, three were acquitted — the New York Times editorialized as follows: “These sentences can neither atone for all the evil these men have brought into the world nor undo any part of it. But they help to assuage the conscience of mankind and to restore to honor the concept of the dignity of man which cannot be violated with impunity.”

Compare that with the Bush administration’s original, Supreme Court-rebuked vision of justice — minimal rights for the accused, torture allowed, the government’s thumb on justice’s scale — and maybe you’ll agree: We need this trial more than Mohammed does. For all its risks — and they are real — it offers a prize worth risking for: the promise of feeling like Americans again.

Er, did Pitts miss the point here by a country mile or what? He’s holding up the Nuremberg trials as a standard of justice — and the Nuremberg trials were, as Pitts himself notes, military tribunals. And unlike Nuremberg, the original Congressional (not “Bush”) law for the 9/11 military commissions allowed more rights than those given Nuremberg defendants, including limited access to appeals through the federal court system.  The Nuremberg defendants had no access to American federal courts, and they had no appeals; those who received the death penalty were executed within hours of their sentencing. Is that the kind of justice Pitts desires to feel “like an American again”?

But that’s not even the issue now, anyway.  The original 2006 military commission law got replaced by a Democratic Congress in 2007.  The “original, Supreme Court-rebuked vision of justice” that Pitts ignorantly declares inferior to the tribunal system at Nuremberg has been replaced by one that the Supreme Court has thus far allowed to continue.  That system is designed to try war criminals like KSM and his cohorts, which the White House plans to use for other Gitmo detainees.  Do those military commissions mean an end to “feeling like Americans again”?

It’s not often that one runs across a column quite so clueless as this one by Leonard Pitts and published by McClatchy.  Maybe Pitts should take a little time to learn about history and current law before opining on this topic again.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How do you fact-check a narrative?

Mr. D on November 24, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Hey Pitts, besides totally missing the fact that the Nurenburg trials were in fact military tribunals, you also miscounted the number of victims of the Nazis. It was more like 14 million.

Vashta.Nerada on November 24, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Ed, you don’t read Leonard Pitts very often then, do you. He is published in my local newspaper and when I decide to read his words, I find he is very often 100% wrong on basic history and facts. His columns are embarassing for him everytime I read him.

chaswv on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM

“The only thing he got wrong were the facts and the principles.”

Typical reporter, then.

Merovign on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Hey, when you’re pushing an agenda you don’t have time to get the facts right.

boomer on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Liberals are allergic to actual facts.

theTarCzar on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Will Pitts explain why some terrorists get public trials while others get military tribunals? Nuremberg didn’t isolate Nazis that way, they all received the same justice venue.

Bishop on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Nuremberg was after the war. Was FDR pestered by naysayers to try Nazi’s in 1943?

flyfisher on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

it’s unreal that these idiots think an elaborate plot financed and planned for years overseas to attack places in our country should be treated the same as the usual husband-shoots-wife-cuz-she-was-banging-some-other-man type murder.

gsherin on November 24, 2009 at 10:21 AM

The man is a moron and a racist! I don’t know how anyone publishes his drivel! Oh, well I guess I do and now know why no reads the papers anymore!

dhunter on November 24, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Ed, you don’t read Leonard Pitts very often then, do you. He is published in my local newspaper and when I decide to read his words, I find he is very often 100% wrong on basic history and facts. His columns are embarassing for him everytime I read him.

chaswv on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Same here. Leonard Pitts is a prime example of the willfully ignorant.

backwoods conservative on November 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM

So, so stupid.

Abby Adams on November 24, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Ed, you don’t read Leonard Pitts very often then, do you. He is published in my local newspaper and when I decide to read his words, I find he is very often 100% wrong on basic history and facts. His columns are embarassing for him everytime I read him.

chaswv on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Was Pitts the columnist who wrote a patriotic column after 9/11 that got a lot of attention, at least among conservatives? I no longer remember the specifics of the column I’m thinking of, but everyone I knew emailed it to me.

flyfisher on November 24, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Gotta wonder about McClatchy readership since the Truthers showed up pronto in the article comments.

Quisp on November 24, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Research is for suckas!

jukin on November 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Interesting to see how much Kool Aid Pitts has swallowed since 9/11. Read this piece he wrote on 9/12/2001 and tell me it’s the same guy

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/374188.html

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Pitts lives up to his name.

Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Ed, you don’t read Leonard Pitts very often then, do you. He is published in my local newspaper and when I decide to read his words, I find he is very often 100% wrong on basic history and facts. His columns are embarassing for him everytime I read him.

chaswv on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Same here. Leonard Pitts is a prime example of the willfully ignorant.

backwoods conservative on November 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM

The majority of the readers of these papers and opinionists believe whatever is printed because they themselves are as ignorant as the authors and editors.

thomasaur on November 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Was Pitts the columnist who wrote a patriotic column after 9/11 that got a lot of attention, at least among conservatives? I no longer remember the specifics of the column I’m thinking of, but everyone I knew emailed it to me.

flyfisher on November 24, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Just posted the link at 10:27.

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM

flyfisher on November 24, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Yep.

Pitts said (directed to those who attacked us): “You don’t know my people, you don’t know what we’re capable of, but you are about to find out.”

Seems Pitts had no problem with smashing the shiite out of an aggressor back then; what a difference an election makes.

Bishop on November 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Whenever Pitts strays from his race columns, he comes off woefully ignorant about history.

uknowmorethanme on November 24, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Leonard Pitt: the new logic czar.

sammypants on November 24, 2009 at 10:29 AM

History??? Truth??? Rule of Law??? Doesn’t matter at all to these people.

On with the show.

red winger on November 24, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Not sure where you got your information, but I understood that there were 60 Million people killed in WWII. (Though some were German and some killed by the Japanese and other Axis forces) There were 30 Million Russians.

Not wanting to pick nits, but ….

barnone on November 24, 2009 at 10:30 AM

greatest barbarism in history had their day in court

You commie-loving b@stard; not all of the barbarism of the 20th Century had their day in court. Many of my commie college professors would still be crying if “Uncle Joe” Stalin had had to go through court. Suck it, KSM needs to meet “justice” – soon & w/o the circus trial in NYC.

Chris Dodd, you know the guy from Connecticut who is going to be unemployed next November, has some perspective because his dad was a prosecutor.

Oops, and then sold his soul once he got in the senate. Nevermind.

Branch Rickey on November 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Trying these guys in civilian court strikes me like tackling a difficult home improvement project yourself which is out of your depth. Unnecessary risk which will probably end badly. The Obama admin sees this as a law enforcement issue rather than a battle in a war. This is so wrong, on so many levels. I can’t think of anything right about it. Just wait for Geraldo’s breathless updates outside of the courthouse. Then everyone will realize what a mistake this is.

Paul-Cincy on November 24, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I knew if Leonard Pitts put out another steaming pile of victimhood my local paper would publish it. Way to stay true Chron…

DanMan on November 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama

LibTired on November 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Leonard Pitts and Barry Obama evidently had the same ‘history’ teacher.

GarandFan on November 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM

and the Nuremberg trials were, as Pitts himself notes, military tribunals. And unlike Nuremberg, the original Congressional (not “Bush”) law for the 9/11 military commissions allowed more rights than those given Nuremberg defendants, including limited access to appeals through the federal court system. The Nuremberg defendants had no access to American federal courts, and they had no appeals; those who received the death penalty were executed within hours of their sentencing. Is that the kind of justice Pitts desires to feel “like an American again”?

Facts are hard and complicated. History in context destroys memes. What do you want from proregressives?

You are quite demanding.
/s

Branch Rickey on November 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM

It’s not often that one runs across a column quite so clueless as this one by Leonard Pitts and published by McClatchy. Maybe Pitts should take a little time to learn about history and current law before opining on this topic again.

Lack of understanding of history. Lack of understanding of the rule of law. A long-winded defense of the indefensible….. Ladies and Gents, I think Robert Gibbs should be worried about his job.

highhopes on November 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Satire: Foreign Terrorists Win Citizens’ Right to Federal Court Trial After Targeting Their 3,000th Civilian: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/foreign-terrorists-win-citizens-right.html

Mervis Winter on November 24, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Oh, and a BTW: did anyone mention that the trial was held in Nuremberg? The high holy city of National Socialism? Not London, not Paris, not Moscow, not Washington D.C.?
Does anyone see the justice of trying the 9/11 defendants on the soil of another enemy of America?

Amendment X on November 24, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Is that the kind of justice Pitts desires to feel “like an American again”?

I’ve no idea what his idea of being an American is. But it does seem like he’s attempting to rewrite history with America, once again portrayed as the bad guy.

4shoes on November 24, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Nuremberg was after the war. Was FDR pestered by naysayers to try Nazi’s in 1943?

flyfisher on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

True, but that’s just another level of wrongness.

hawksruleva on November 24, 2009 at 10:37 AM

It’s not often that one runs across a column quite so clueless as this one by Leonard Pitts and published by McClatchy.

A little editing for ya.

It was McClatchy, who’s local economics/government columnist tried to make the case for greater central control, by stating that one billion dollars in the private economy only generated 1,000 jobs, where one billion dollars in government hands could employ several thousand.

Nevermind telling the moron that McClatchy, on less than 2 billion in revenue, employed 18,000.

This at the time, McClatchy sent a special correspondent to Argentina to provide continuing coverage of Mark Sanford’s love life.

There’s a reason that companies like McClatchy are going bankrupt. It’s not because they usually provide columns with a clue.

MNHawk on November 24, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Branch Rickey on November 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Yup. Mao and Pol Pot were the two greatest barbarians of the 20th century. And two people that lefty academics will defend to their dying breath.

PimFortuynsGhost on November 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Obama would call this putting lipstick on a pig.

booter on November 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I just looked up Pitts, and it seems to me this guy is just a piece of human garbage. Unfortunately, like many black Americans, he seems also to be obsessed with skin tone and attacking whites. Whites can never wear the victim hat, he says.

And now nonsense like this current article. What a piece of work.

TheBlueSite on November 24, 2009 at 10:41 AM

I doubt very many people realize yet what a shameful circus this is going to be. Can you say “muslim apologist protesters out in force with counter-protesters ready to mix it up at any second”? I’ll be surprised if there isn’t a full-blown riot with the “death to all juice” guy somewhere in there hitting people on the head with his stupid sign.

Mord on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Compare that with the Bush administration’s original, Supreme Court-rebuked vision of justice — minimal rights for the accused, torture allowed, the government’s thumb on justice’s scale — and maybe you’ll agree: We need this trial more than Mohammed does. For all its risks — and they are real — it offers a prize worth risking for: the promise of feeling like Americans again.

Which is, of course, why if KSM is declared not guilty or a mistrial results he’ll be set free…oh wait, this is a show trial.

gwelf on November 24, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Maybe Pitts should take a little time to learn about history and current law before opining on this topic again.

A foolish idea! Truth and facts are poison to liberals. Just look at those who post here as empirical evidence.

Liam on November 24, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Lets try Eric Holder for treason while we are at it.

bluegrass on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Everything Pitts writes is stupid. They print his crap every other day in the Cincinnati Enquirer – which used to be a conservative newspaper. He just perpetuates the ignorance of the left. He comes up with nothing new, just the same old stupidity.

RustBelt on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM

It’s worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court.

Wrong. Communists have the Nazi’s beat on that score by a country mile. The Islamo-Fascists have their eye on the record now and will get there if this crap keeps up.

RadClown on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM

The culmination of the hate Bush/Neocon meme will be delivered by KSM. Besides OBL, perhaps the person best prepared to deliver the “why you suck” American rebuke.

The perfect lead in for the first post American Presidency. Put more succinctly, the first President who looks outside the borders for validation.

R Square on November 24, 2009 at 10:48 AM

The article is gone, but a blog helpfully reprinted for posterity.

State Economist Tom Stinson estimates the spending cuts Gov. Tim Pawlenty will start making today will cost Minnesota 3,300 to 4,700 jobs.

By contrast, Stinson told the Legislative Advisory Commission on Tuesday, the $1 billion income tax increase that the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed and Pawlenty vetoed in May would have cost the state an estimated 1,000 jobs over the next two years.

— Pioneer Press

It’s not just Pitts. This kind of rot defines the entire McClatchy organization.

MNHawk on November 24, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Ed, you don’t read Leonard Pitts very often then, do you. He is published in my local newspaper and when I decide to read his words, I find he is very often 100% wrong on basic history and facts. His columns are embarassing for him everytime I read him.

chaswv on November 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Exactly. He gets a pass because of affirmative action, & because he’s a lefty.

jgapinoy on November 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Bravo Leonard! Pulitzer material! Now all we need is for you to produce a man-made global warming article and you’re Hollyweird bound.

Rovin on November 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I wonder what Pitts will write when the show trials of patriots begin, with the patriots convicted in short order while the KSM show trial goes on and on with endless appeals and procedural challenges.

Liam on November 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Compare that with the Bush administration’s original, Supreme Court-rebuked vision of justice — minimal rights for the accused, torture allowed, the government’s thumb on justice’s scale

Obviously, he missed Obama’s statement that they will be found guilty and given the death penalty and that of Holder who declared “Failure is not an option”

a capella on November 24, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Interesting to see how much Kool Aid Pitts has swallowed since 9/11. Read this piece he wrote on 9/12/2001 and tell me it’s the same guy

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/374188.html

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 10:27 AM

I always remembered that piece. Sadly, he then reverted back to BDS.

JammieWearingFool on November 24, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Anyone have any questions regarding newspapers needing a bailout? The Dem party is in deep trouble if the print media goes tits up. Dems need Pitts and his ilk to keep the people stupid.

booter on November 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Pitts is the pits, a waste of ink and paper.

Star20 on November 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM

This is silly on so many levels. First the Nuremburg Trials were hardly a model of justice. Look at the first row of that picture. Ribbentrop was convicted and sentenced to death for conspiring to commit a war of agression. Who did he conspire with? Molotov of course. The secret codicil dividing Poland between the Germans and the Soviets was widely recognized by October 1939, just based on the movement of men by both sides to the agreed partition border. Who sentenced him to death? A judge appointed by Molotov! His co-conpirator!

I’m not defending any of these evil men. I hate Nazis. I’m just saying the procedures of military tribunals we have are at least as fair as what the defendants had at Nuremberg. Bringing them to Manhattan is nothing but a political ploy to give their lawyers the opportunity to put the CIA, Bush and Cheney on trial.

Ted Torgerson on November 24, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Listen, I know I am beating a dead horse, but the answer to why fact checks aren’t done is perfectly illustrated by the 18 million dollar website recovery.org.
The facts and figures have proven to be wrong, way wrong, not even close…and the gov. has issued a statement that they are not going to correct the wrong figures because “they don’t want to confuse the people”.
They can write any narrative, then they just spin it to what they want the people to hear, with no regard for facts.
The “big lie” is a liberal policy…and they aren’t even hiding the fact now.

right2bright on November 24, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Leonard Pitts has ALWAYS been clueless; McClatchy is the same for actually paying this guy for his cluelessness.

michaelo on November 24, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Let’s give them a fair trial followed by a first class hangin’.

UltimateBob on November 24, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Maybe Pitts should take a little time to learn about history and current law before opining on this topic again.

He’s a liberal. History is whatever they decide it is. Who cares about what really happened? Libs just make up whatever facts they need to fit their narrative.

AZCoyote on November 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Everything Pitts writes is stupid. They print his crap every other day in the Cincinnati Enquirer – which used to be a conservative newspaper. He just perpetuates the ignorance of the left. He comes up with nothing new, just the same old stupidity.

RustBelt on November 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Maybe that’s why a conservative paper runs his column regularly, as a constant reminder of the stupidity of the left.

UltimateBob on November 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Not sure where you got your information, but I understood that there were 60 Million people killed in WWII. (Though some were German and some killed by the Japanese and other Axis forces) There were 30 Million Russians.

Not wanting to pick nits, but ….

barnone on November 24, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Based on the opening clause of the sentence, he seems to be talking only of the concentration camp victims. His number is still off the mark, however.

Vashta.Nerada on November 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM

LOL … I do hope the DNC gets a STEAM SHOVEL for Christmas!

Ooops … wait …

Appears they’ve already got one, judging from the speed at which they are digging themselves a hole!

HondaV65 on November 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Pitts is just your basic affirmative action “columnist”. No editor needed.

bradley11 on November 24, 2009 at 11:15 AM

I agree with Churchill. We should have shot the NAZI leadership and we should begin to just shoot captured jihadis. The left has made it too much of a negative to imprison and interrogate them.

And frankly, it is a far more just and ethical solution then these circuses that Obama is about to give us.

By the way, where is the media concern over the fact that Obama is only sending some, specifically those he believes easiest to convict, to civilian courts? Isn’t that a far greater concern then trying none in civilian courts?!?

18-1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The Nuremberg defendants … had no appeals; those who received the death penalty were executed within hours of their sentencing.

Actually, that’s not true, at least of the main trial of the german high commans that we all call “the Nuremberg trials.” The verdicts were delivered Oct. 1, 1946, and the executions took place Oct. 16. This gap of only a few weeks was also unremarkably short at the time — in Britain, for example, there was a set rule of three Sundays between sentence and execution.

courageman on November 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM

This is silly on so many levels. First the Nuremburg Trials were hardly a model of justice. Look at the first row of that picture. Ribbentrop was convicted and sentenced to death for conspiring to commit a war of agression. Who did he conspire with? Molotov of course. The secret codicil dividing Poland between the Germans and the Soviets was widely recognized by October 1939, just based on the movement of men by both sides to the agreed partition border. Who sentenced him to death? A judge appointed by Molotov! His co-conpirator!

Ted Torgerson on November 24, 2009 at 11:01 AM

That is a very good specific example, but isn’t there a larger issue with Soviet participation? Namely that the Soviet judges rendered the verdicts that Stalin wanted, not an independent judgment of their own?

18-1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Todd Beamer’s dad, David Beamer on Fox…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg7cPdmi1B8

reshas1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Leonard Pitts is still writing? He is a clueless tool. He once wrote a column a few years ago about how scared he was to get near the state of Mississippi (my home state), but one day he finally decided to visit. He wrote about how friendly the people were to him, how he enjoyed the museums, how great the food was, etc… but in the end, he said that because of Mississippi’s past he still didn’t like it. I think the reason for his trip was to scream about all the racism and hate; he was expecting the Mississippi of the 60′s and was disappointed that it wasn’t there any more.

behiker on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Yup. Mao and Pol Pot were the two greatest barbarians of the 20th century. And two people that lefty academics will defend to their dying breath.

PimFortuynsGhost on November 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Hmm, we had a prominent member of the Obama administration praising Mao, and Noam Chomsky, the Left’s most prominent intellectual was infamous for his support for the Khmer Rouge.

18-1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Hey, don’t forget this ironic point.

Per Obama, even if they are found “not guilty”, they aren’t going to be released. That’ll show the world how fair we are. Let’s go ahead and announce that up front.

Obama even allowed that this decision will look good “when they are executed”. And if we want to “afford to act like America”, is there anything that tops a good execution?

connertown on November 24, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Nuremberg was after the war. Was FDR pestered by naysayers to try Nazi’s in 1943?

flyfisher on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Well, the Allied forces did summarily execute captured German “spies and saboteurs” during the Battle of the Bulge. Since they were out of uniform and violating the norms of war, it was expected they would be executed…

18-1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:31 AM

it’s unreal that these idiots think an elaborate plot financed and planned for years overseas to attack places in our country should be treated the same as the usual husband-shoots-wife-cuz-she-was-banging-some-other-man type murder.

gsherin on November 24, 2009 at 10:21 AM

I don’t know, my liberal acquaintances are pretty sure the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda sprang into being in Jan 2001. They were mad about the Bush v Gore decision seems to be the unstated reason. :)

18-1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM

I think expecting liberals to argue on the basis of facts is unrealistic, particularly when they’re given the opportunity to bash America, Bush and the CIA. They routinely make stuff up on issues both more and less important than this. That their rationale for the NY trials is both counter-factual and logically flawed should count as no surprise: They will be given, through this “trial” (that the BO08 has already declared a foregone conclusion) a spectacular orgy of America-hating and Bush-excoriating beyond their wildest wet dreams. Their personal gratification in this way outweighs, in their minds, all other considerations.

mr.blacksheep on November 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM

They will be given, through this “trial” (that the BO08 has already declared a foregone conclusion) a spectacular orgy of America-hating and Bush-excoriating beyond their wildest wet dreams. Their personal gratification in this way outweighs, in their minds, all other considerations.

mr.blacksheep on November 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I’ll mail KSM a cookie though if he calls Obama a muslim apostate.

18-1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM

As that rogue Ronald Reagan said, liberals do indeed know more than everybody else. It’s just that most of what they know is wrong. See above.

Anyway, as Ed points out, the detainees at Gitmo have been given more rights than any other enemy combatants captured by this country in our history. That was before the Surpremes messed everything up with their intervention.

Lazy column by Pitts.

SteveMG on November 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I remember reading somewhere that German courts tried some folks as well.

Note, though, that would be at the instigation of German prosecutors, not American.

BD57 on November 24, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Pitts is just your basic affirmative action “columnist”. No editor needed.

And just like our Affirmative Action-figure President, most of his messages consist of platitudes lathered over with a rich layer of fatuous incomprehensibility. When I occasionally attempt read one of his columns, I usually have to lie down for several minutes afterwards to overcome the disorientation.

drunyan8315 on November 24, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I think Ed was less than lethal in his take-down of Pitts because he was just too easy a target. Kind of like swatting a crippled fly. You almost hate to do it, but then…it’s a fly. You can’t just let it crawl on your tuna sandwich.

SKYFOX on November 24, 2009 at 11:48 AM

They don’t teach history anymore in high schools or colleges. How much is this show trial going to cost the American taxpayers?

SC.Charlie on November 24, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Are they handing out Pulitzers like goody bags or what?

RobCon on November 24, 2009 at 11:55 AM

This is silly on so many levels. First the Nuremburg Trials were hardly a model of justice. Look at the first row of that picture. Ribbentrop was convicted and sentenced to death for conspiring to commit a war of agression.

And then remember many of the major players in Nazi Germany escaped justice completely.
Goring (true, he was convicted, but did not get executed)
Mengele
Hitler
Eichmann
blah, blah, blah.

the Nuremberg trials would result in convictions for life in prison. But then many of the lifers would be out of prison after just a few years.
It in fact can be argued that the Nuremberg trials were more of a failure of justice than anything.

mjk on November 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM

The majority of the readers of these papers and opinionists believe whatever is printed because they themselves are as ignorant as the authors and editors.

thomasaur on November 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM

You know my neighbors?

donh525 on November 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Nuremburg and 9-11 shouldn’t be compared. Nuremburg was set up to try war crimes perpetrated by criminals acting on behalf of national entities. The Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were states. Terrorists should not be accorded the same treatment as they are individuals not state entities. They would love to warrant the same status as a government or international players but the fact is that they are just murdering criminals.

lexhamfox on November 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Nuremberg was after the war. Was FDR pestered by naysayers sympathizers to try Nazi’s in 1943?

flyfisher on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Seems more apropos.

Fishoutofwater on November 24, 2009 at 12:08 PM

They would love to warrant the same status as a government or international players but the fact is that they are just murdering criminals.

lexhamfox on November 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Can’t let that go. These guys might not have a common country but they have a common ideology. That ideology is at war with the west. Common criminals? I think not.

donh525 on November 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Why on earth would a reporter or newspaper do some homework before publishing a story?

ammo john on November 24, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Liberals are allergic to actual facts.

theTarCzar on November 24, 2009 at 10:20 AM

If you don’t like the facts, make up your own. Why not, that is what liberals always do. Liars and fools are the backbone of the liberal movement, and they have no problem making “informed decisions” with information other than the facts. That is why their outcomes are almost always a disaster.

saiga on November 24, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Maybe Pitts should take a little time to learn about history and current law before opining on this topic again.

Oh, Puh-Lease. Why was the last time a liberal had to know anything about anything before shooting off their mouths with blatant stupidity and mindless BS?

oldleprechaun on November 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM

There is no amount of medication to cure Booooosshh syndrome.

faol on November 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Please don’t give Pitts any attention. The man is nasty and narrow-minded beyond belief. I have to put up with him in my local paper.

Connie on November 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Yep. Have him in my local too. He’s an idiot. Actually he’s a fool. I’m going to bring back that word and it’s original mean. I’m just going to start telling people: ‘You are a fool’ and be done with the conversation.

j_galt on November 24, 2009 at 12:53 PM

The Nuremburg trials were about 30 years before American juries would accept the “Twinkie Defense”, right? So even back when the civil courts were more trustworthy, it was a military tribunal.

Axeman on November 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM

WOW!! I`m shocked I tell ya.

LSUMama on November 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Er, did Pitts miss the point here by a country mile or what?

Pitts misses most things by a country mile. He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.

jack herman on November 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Er, did Pitts miss the point here by a country mile or what?

I do not know if these folks are not too bright, delusional, or just blinded by their own political beliefs.

Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Liberals have no use for history. History is an impediment…much like the Constitution.

Army Brat on November 24, 2009 at 2:50 PM

If Pitts can interpret history his way and comment about it his way, even though he is wrong, then I can interpret it my way and comment on it the way I want to. Pitts is an ill informed writer, and has a reading comprehension problem. But someone has hired him for the dummy he is, and intends to use his stupidity in their favor.
Standard practice in news reporting techniques in use today.
What historians and conservatives need to be vigilant for, is these false interpretations being accepted as factual history.
Reading comprehension, logic, and plain common sense has to be applied to everything we read, these days.

Cybergeezer on November 24, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Pitts illustrates the pitfalls of affirmative action in hiring pundits. If you just have to have one of each approved color, sex, and shape, you can’t be too picky about quality and you end up with an idiot like him.
`
Imagine how much worse it would be to use affirmative action to hire for an important job, like the Presidency. Oh, wait – never mind!
`

Adjoran on November 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2