Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Hey, it's another one from our old friend Pat, who is not at all happy that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be going on trial on NYC:
These guy should be tried in International Court. Just like the Nazi's were. But because our President is a liberal; this will not be done.
Um. He does realize that conservatives are opposed to the very existence of the International Criminal Court and other such international tribunals, doesn't he?
He is of the belief system that the terrorists were nothing more than common petty criminals and should be treated as such. This is the same mistake that President Bill Clinton made and it is why September 11′th happened in the first place.
Except that Clinton actually put the men who masterminded the first WTC attack in 1993 in prison. They're still in prison. Our court system handled them just fine. Why, exactly, would Pat believe that if we tried and convicted these guys under a military tribunal system rather than a civilian court system, that would change something? Evidence obtained under torture is no more admissible in a military court -- and even less so under an international tribunal -- than it is in a civilian court.
And if Pat really thinks that admissions obtained by torture should be admissible as evidence, then I suggest we kidnap Pat, beat him all to hell and waterboard him and then use whatever he confesses to convict him in court. He won't object, of course. And since torture was designed precisely to obtain false confessions, I bet it'll work. For all his pseudo-macho bluster, five seconds of waterboarding would have ol' Pat admitting to having shot the sheriff and the deputy.
Politics
Comments
Ed, you're going to have to stop using Pat for these quotes, it isn't fair for all the other idiots who try to be as stupid and just can't manage it.
Posted by: Matty | November 15, 2009 9:39 AM
Won't you have to get past his mother to kidnap him?
Posted by: Apegod | November 15, 2009 9:44 AM
I think Pat is the subject for this piece by the onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of
"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are. "
Posted by: Vic Vanity | November 15, 2009 9:47 AM
Yes but Matty-
Peppermint Patty is so good at condensing all the usual Reich-wing idiocy into one web-site, it reduces the carbon-footprint of reality-based mockery. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 15, 2009 9:48 AM
"Won't you have to get past his mother to kidnap him?"
I envision Pat's mom doing the following.
She sees several hooded men in rainbow hued BDU's skulking along the outside wall of the house, slips over to the door and unlatches it. As the nefarious perps head for the living room she says, with her back to them, "Oh, dear, I hope Pat is comfortable in that cellar lair of his"...
Posted by: democommie | November 15, 2009 9:54 AM
Treating KSM as a criminal is EXACTLY what should happen. Let's strip these creeps of their jihadist glory and expose them to the world as the ordinary bloodstained murderers that they are. Then let's make them spend the rest of their lives in a tiny cell.
Holder isn't putting KS
Watch and learn, Pat.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 15, 2009 10:05 AM
Sorry, that secodn paragraph should read:
Holder isn't putting KSM on trial because he sympathizes with him. He's doing it because it will show the world that we respect laws and justice and the jihadists don't.
Watch and learn Pat.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 15, 2009 10:07 AM
i really don't get why people are so confused as to why these people don't want a civilian trial for KSM. It gives these terriers the status of being actual humans. A military tribunal takes them out of "jury of peers" world, because of course no God Fearing Merkin should ever have to waste jury duty on such a subcreature, and of course an international court lets them pretend that the rest of the world really does support whatever America does ... unless, of course, they let him off the hook, in which case it just confirms that the rest of the world hates America and we should tell them to fuck off, post haste.
I'm tired of the entire omgKSMisinNYC conversation.
Posted by: Andrea | November 15, 2009 10:15 AM
Deriding "Pat" for his stupid remarks is like making fun of a dyslexic child for misspelling. I am a little dismayed to find that on this blog.
Posted by: Rodney | November 15, 2009 10:34 AM
Deriding "Pat" for his stupid remarks is like making fun of a dyslexic child for misspelling. I am a little dismayed to find that on this blog.
Except that a dyslexic child is deserving of our sympathies, unlike Pat.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 15, 2009 10:53 AM
Ed, it is time that you properly recognize Pat for all the good times.
Just like you previously renamed the Idiot of the Month to the Robert O'Brien Trophy winner, I think you should do the same with our dear friend (read: punching bag) Pat.
After all, anyone who effectivly calls himself a Pedophile Asshat in his own comment truly IS the king of the Dumbass Quote of the Day.
Just to simply things (and to remove profanity)... I suggest calling it the P.A.Pat Dumbass Quote of the Day. I'm sure he'll appreciate being honored like this.
Posted by: doctorgoo | November 15, 2009 11:03 AM
Yet another measure of how delusional many Americans are: they believe that the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world has a bleeding-heart justice system that will seize any excuse to let the bad guys run loose.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 15, 2009 11:25 AM
@ Scott Hanley | November 15, 2009 11:25 AM
Could not have said it better.
Posted by: Owen | November 15, 2009 11:39 AM
"Evidence obtained under torture is no more admissible in a military court"
Ah, but in a military court, the prosecution doesn't need to admit it was obtained under torture. They can just present it, and if asked for their source claim that to reveal this would compromise national security.
If military course respected the same standards of justice as civilian courts, there would be no civilian courts.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | November 15, 2009 11:50 AM
Suricou Raven wrote:
No, this is not true. Even in the bastardized military tribunals used at Gitmo, the judges -- all of them military officers -- have consistently thrown out evidence obtained under torture. And those tribunals did not offer nearly the protections for due process that regular courts martial did. Holding such trials in regular military courts under court martial rules has an advantage over civilian courts in the fact that those involved may well already have security clearance on both sides, which lowers the likelihood of any classified information being released and therefore diminishes the state secrets arguments. And I think the JAG corps has proven itself sufficiently zealous as effective advocates for their clients (even several prosecutors have resigned to protest the lack of due process at Gitmo) that they can be trusted to put up a vigorous defense.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be tried in a civilian court; I'm perfectly fine with that. But I would not have a problem if they were instead tried in a regular military tribunal with all the normal rules that govern a court martial proceeding and JAG officers defending them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 15, 2009 12:00 PM
Since I expect Pat will be making his next appearance shortly, let me just say in advance, No Pat, the fact of the matter is(insert facts here). Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | November 15, 2009 12:00 PM
Interestingly enough, attorney F. Lee Bailey, who had considerable experience in both civilian criminal cases and military courts marshal, has stated that the standard of justice in a military court was higher then in a civilian court. He further stated that, if he were guilty of a crime, he would rather be tried in a civilian court and if he were innocent, he would rather be tried in a military court.
Posted by: SLC | November 15, 2009 12:27 PM
Gleen Greenwald did an excellent piece recently equating the fear Conservatives have with the Terrorists actually winning in their desires to disturb the populace. Why does the GOP want America to lose so badly?
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | November 15, 2009 12:32 PM
In case Pat doesn't show up, I'll post something he would likely write.
"Two words:
Go fuck yourselves."
Posted by: The real Pat | November 15, 2009 12:40 PM
@ doctorgoo,
While Pat has indeed said many stupid thing, I think it's hard to argue he deserves his own award just for that. However, where I think Pat has gone above and beyond the call of duty is hypocrisy. Shall I list just some of the ways:
1. Coming on someone else's blog to tell them "Fuck You" and then, when Ed goes and criticize things he writes on his blog, not to just object, but to threaten to have Ed arrested for stalking.
2. After threatening to have Ed arrested for stalking, to then go and try to post Ed's home address and exhort his followers (imaginary or otherwise) to go and pay Ed a visit, which is in fact, trying to encourage others to stalk Ed.
3. When someone actually finds Pat's home address and posts it, he actually brings up stalking laws again. And claims if anyone visits him or leaves any packages, he will call the police....for the same thing he just tried to encourage others to do not long ago.
That is like, fucking, recursive hypocrisy. Now, that's hard to do.
Of course, there's much much more. The hypocritical and racists tirade against Anh Cao while accusing others of being "classless" was nice. So was the attempt at first amendment martyrdom to protect himself again people criticizing him (know you, the first amendment). There's so much more in fact, that I would support naming a weekly or monthly hypocrisy award after him. Because, it's not even what Pat writes, it's that when you poke him, he is sure to say something macho, hilarious, and yet completely self unaware in defense of himself.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 15, 2009 12:58 PM
I don't know what Pat means by "International Court". The International Court of Justice does not try criminals; it primarily adjudicates disputes between states. The International Criminal Court (ICC) does exist, but since the US has not ratified the Statute of the ICC and does not accept compulsory ICC jurisdiction, trying him there is not an option. (Ironically, it was Bush, not Obama, who was adamantly opposed to ratifying the ICC Statute.) Nor do I see any possible reason why it would be necessary.
Posted by: Walton | November 15, 2009 1:32 PM
Ed: Didn't Pat roll over and play dead on the last thread? I know he brought the abuse on himself, but it's time to let it go.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 15, 2009 2:36 PM
It's always nice to wake up and read such stupidity. A great way to brighten my day.
Pat, keep talking. The world would be remiss if your brilliant yet voracious voice wasn't on the internet to remind us how deep and insightful you are. Make sure to keep up your posting, and maybe one day you'll replace Glen Beck as the most insightful man on television.
Posted by: Kel | November 15, 2009 3:45 PM
Willful ignorance and arrogance is not a disability.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 15, 2009 5:09 PM
@9
The difference is a dyslexic child does not claim to be good at spelling, but Pat claims to know what he is talking about
From my point of view in regards to Pat it would be like a dyslexic child telling everyone that in fact they are the ones who can't spell
XxX
Posted by: Kim | November 15, 2009 7:23 PM
"From my point of view in regards to Pat it would be like a dyslexic child telling everyone that in fact they are the ones who can't spell"
I would disagree on one point. Children below a certain age are subject to magical thinking as a result of the immaturity of their brains, and thus cannot be faulted for it.
Pat is more like an illiterate adult who acts like a child and persists in telling everyone that in fact they are the ones who can't spell. And who refuses offers of free courses in reading and writing.
Posted by: amphiox | November 15, 2009 11:07 PM
amphiox
I agree, your point is better made than mine :p
Posted by: Kim | November 16, 2009 9:42 AM
And he's subject to magical thinking.
Posted by: Coryat | November 16, 2009 12:01 PM
Of course everyone here knows that if Holder had announced that KSM was to be tried by an International Court (Walton's point notwithstanding) then Pat would have been first in line to congratulate him on a wise decision. Right?
Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 16, 2009 12:50 PM
Really, it's not so much Pat's errors in logic or facts that bother me, as much as his abuse of the innocent semi-colon.
If I Were King(TM), people who used semi-colons in this fashion would be tried in the International Criminal Court.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 16, 2009 1:20 PM
James Sweet:
Why;?
Posted by: democommie | November 16, 2009 2:24 PM
Kehrsam,
At this point it's kind of like driving past a terrible car accident. You know you shouldn't, you realize you're going to see things that horrify and scar you for life, you feel bad afterward, but still, as you drive past, you can't help yourself.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 16, 2009 6:04 PM
I was really hoping, back in the day, that we'd nab the responsible bastards, hold them in normal prison cells just like any other murderers, run them through a normal murder trial in a normal court of law, and having afforded them the benefit of competent defense lawyers and trusted a jury of what might be considered their peers to examine the evidence presented, that after their day in court, they'd either be convicted or acquitted just like any other common criminals.
Then the frightened little girl that is Dick Cheney had to go all Blofeld on us and wreck any chance at all of showing the world by example that America's strength is its rule of law, not, as displayed by its enemies, inhuman brutality.
Posted by: Bob | November 16, 2009 6:27 PM
After a day spent in part arguing with my countrymen over what needs to be done with Omar Khadr, the comments on this post are a source of cheer and hope.
Ordinary people who believed in one justice for all created a system, or set of systems to try and acheive something like genuine justice. It's not perfect, but you mess with it at your peril.
I'm so glad to see that real people believe that terrorists are just like any other criminals, and that the civvy court system is up to the task of dispensing them justice.
Posted by: Metro | November 17, 2009 3:56 AM