Ya think?

Two stories came out of Washington, DC this week, sort of.

The first is the trial of 4 conspirators who are said to be the men who planned and paid for the 9/11 attacks, now set for New York City next door to the hole that once was the World Trade Center.

The other was the story President Obama is still thinking about what to do with Afghanistan and won't be rushed.

Driving home I now listen to Sean Hannity, which is usually good for a laugh and I heard someone who sounded particularly vacuous and shrill and she turned out to be Ann Coulter, who predictably enough, thought trying the 9/11 crew was a bad idea. As far as I could figure, she thought it was a bad idea primarily because it was an idea which came out of the Obama administration, so ipso facto,it has to be a bad idea. The other problem seemed to be it was not her idea.

Later, I heard David Brooks on Jim Lehrer's News Hour say it is a bad idea. He actually had some reasons: 1/ It is a bad idea because the accused just might be found innocent and/or set free 2/ It puts New York City at risk from more terrorist crazies (as if NYC is no longer a target for crazies and if we are very very quiet maybe they'll forget all about NYC even being there.) 3/ It portrays the act of the 9/11 attack as being a crime rather than an act of war.

As for the first two points, they are hardly worth refuting on almost any level, but just to make it very clear to the very slow child which has emerged as David Brooks on TV: Yes, a trial is supposed to not be fore ordained, and if we've got the wrong guys maybe it would be a good idea to know about it; on the other hand, the chances of these guys getting set free by a New York jury if there is any doubt they may have been involved, are slim and less than nil.

Putting New York City at new or special risk? The place is the center of the world, the coolest city on earth and for that reason it continues to be in the cross hairs of all those envious loonies from around the world who want to aggrandize themselves by trying to destroy something which is so much more important and greater than themselves.

As for the last problem, the attack on the World Trade Center, from the point of view of the terrorists, was an act of war. Those Palestinians who were dancing in the streets and handing out free candy following the attacks were not celebrating what they saw as a crime but what they saw as a legitimate act of war, on their behalf. Those Nazi big wigs, wearing their uniforms in the docket at Nuremberg called themselves soldiers and thought of their murderous acts as acts of war, against the children at Dachau and against the civilians in London air raids. But part of the humiliation of those miscreants was putting them on trial like common criminals, which is exactly as they ought to be remembered. Just losers who murdered people and were hanged for it.

One of those guys, the fat one, Hermann Goering I think, managed to swallow cyanide to "Cheat the hangman" because hanging is a pretty demeaning and undignified way to die.

So we ought to insist on trying these guys as common criminals. David Brooks is afraid they will stand up in court and speechify and have a forum for their own propaganda, but that can be managed. They can be housed in a glass cage and their microphones turned off if they become too annoying.

No, being put on trial for murder can be quite humiliating and can make you look really bad, and if the thing is staged managed properly, it can be a real great show for a public looking for revenge.

What the conservatives might be worried about, if they were capable of cool headed reflection, is what a huge statement about his own toughness, about his faith in our own system and ultimately about his cool toughness and courage, this trial could be for President Obama.

Yes, we are not afraid of putting these guys on trial. We are not afraid of losing the trial. We are not afraid of terrorist bombings during the trial. We are not afraid of putting these moral monsters to death, possibly by a public hanging at ground zero.


Then there is Afghanistan, the other non news story. The President is taking his time. He has every right to take his time.

The hard part is the decision. How do you look resolute and determined without looking to the Afghan government like a free lunch and without looking to the Afghan people like just another invader?

The answer is: We announce the time has come for us to phase out. The President says, "I said Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the right war. Well, Afghanistan was the right war, when the Taliban was in power, when Osama Bin Laden had free and open life there. But now, for the moment at least, the Taliban has been sent packing to Pakistan and is not in power. It may come back, but then we can always come back if we see a reinstated Taliban in Afghanistan as a threat.

Our main goal in invading Afghanistan was to protect ourselves and to attack those who attacked us. We now have other ways to protect ourselves. We realize the whole notion of denying Al Qaeda sanctuaries is preposterous because they do not need Afghanistan or Somolia or Indonesia or any special plot of turf or geography for home bases. All they need is an apartment in Germany or in New York or Miami and an internet connection.

So we will continue to fight Al Qaeda with Special OPs and with our own intelligence but we do not need boots on the ground anymore. We do not need to provide either the Taliban or Al Qaeda with convenient targets in the form of our young men and women of the armed services.

These American warriors have served valiantly and effectively but now their leaders need to be as brave as they have been and worthy of being their leaders and it is time to redeploy, to use our armed forces in a more intelligent way than simply consigning them to becoming an occupation force or a police force.

We never intended to stay in Afghanistan for a hundred years.

We can continue to advise any Afghanies who want to listen, but given the realities of that government and that culture, we cannot continue to spend precious American lives trying to impose order and morality on that land.

So tomorrow, we will withdraw our troops to fortified locations and begin to effect an orderly draw down of forces. If we are attacked, we can respond with all the force we deem necessary, but our plan is to leave Afghanistan to the Afghanies.

If we see reason to return to protect ourselves, we will be just over the horizon. "

That's the speech President Obama can give.

As Richard Russell, one of the few people Lyndon Johnson really trusted, once told Johnson, when Johnson asked Russell what he as President should do about Viet Nam, Russell said, "Well, Mr. President, the thing is, we are going to go home eventually."

"Yep, that's true," Johnson said.

"And they know that."

"Yep. They probably do."

"So there's no reason for them to give up. 'Cause they know they're gonna still be there after we're gone."

Johnson, unfortunately, having heard truth spoken to power did not act upon this insight. Hopefully, Obama will be smarter.

An Open and Shut Case

A recent case from Iowa ought to be a good test for the Phantom's unscientific, empirical theory of the Supreme Court.

The case stems from an Iowa murder conviction, and as I understand it, certain "facts" are agreed as matter of stipulation, to wit: A high school senior, a black youth (a promising young man, who was being recruited to play football at Yale,) was arrested and convicted of the murder of a white man on the testimony of another teenager.

The teenager who provided the incriminating testimony got nearly everything wrong when police and prosecutors first interrogated him: the wrong location for the murder he supposedly had witnessed, the wrong weapon (a handgun vs a shotgun) and utimately, even the state of Iowa, or at least the appelate courts agreed the witness was simply not to be believed and there was evidence the prosecutors coached him relentlessly until he had a story which would hold water in court.

The prosecutors, by most if not by all accounts, knew their witness was a phony, but they used his testimony to get a conviction.

Assertions were later made about the reasons the prosecutors were so determined to convict the defendant--the defedant was African American and would be tried by an all white jury; the alternative suspect was well connected in the community. The reasons the prosecutors proceeded with evidence which was clearly a fabrication are not agreed upon, but the falsity of the testimony is not in dispute, nor, as far as I can tell is the awareness on the part of the prosecutors about the falsity.

After 25 years in jail, the defendant managed to get himself exonerated through the appelate process and then sued the prosecutors who knowingly falsely accused him.

The prosecutors have argued not that they were convinced they had the right man but simply that even if they knew the testimony was specious they cannot be held accountable for their actions because as officers of the state, as prosecutors, they are immune from such suits under a law which protects them from personal liability as a result of their work as prosecutors. They argue, and I think I actually have this right, they argue the process of preparing a witness for his false testimony is part of and inseparable from the actual trial and the clear legal precedent is no prosecutor can be sued for what he says during the trial, in court.

So if suborning perjury occurs as part of this process, they are still immune because it was all part and parcel of the trial. That, as far as I can tell, is their actual argument.

They are saying,in effect, it was the jury's duty to determine whether or not to believe the false witness the prosecutors' witness had presented during trial.

You do not need three years in law school to figure out how to rule in this case, you might say.

But, if the Phantom's theory of the Supreme Court is correct, then the four justices who vote for those in power will, in this astonishing case, manage to find a reason to rule in favor of the prosecutors, who, after all, are the guys in power. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will all somehow find a way to find for the the authority figures, just as they found a way to find in favor of the high school principal who stomped across the street to destroy the "Bong Hits for Jesus" sign displayed off school property at a parade.

That this young man, who had such a promising future was so wronged by the government's men, that his life and prospects were ruined, that the real culprit was allowed to go free because the prosecutors chose to prosecute the wrong man will matter not at all.

All that will matter is the ex convict is suing the government officials, the little guy is trying to bring down the powerful.

If the justices vote as the Phantom predicts, can there be any doubt having a law degree, having been a judge or a lawyer, having been judged "Qualified" by the American Bar Association is all hogwash.

If they find for the prosecutors, there is no law here, only social agenda. And if social agenda is what drives Supreme Court decisions, why do you need a law degree? Why should we not have a few scientists, police, doctors on the Supreme Court, to balance all the "legal" thinkers.

Stay tuned.