NYT Editorial Wants Terrorist Murderers Tried as Criminals, not War Criminals

Playing fair is something that is anathema to the left. As one old-time lefty, a real dinosaur Stalin-lover named Mark Rudd told me: "Dare to cheat, dare to win." That seems to be the motto of the New York Times, as it attempts to rewrite the Constitution according to its own appraisal of US national security concerns.

This editorial seems to conflate the NYT's unspeakable arrogance and insufferable self-righteousness into one neat set of paragraphs. The Congress approved the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President executed the actions, albeit with less than full competence, and now the buzzards on the left are trying to justify their spoiled-meat appetites by trying to set precedents of trying POWs in courts of law, a new standard that would be a hilarious joke if so many lawyers and judges didn't use this chicanery as a wedge to stage of putsch---a coup d'etat to make war crimes a legal problem to be judged in civilian courts.

Of course, the Democrats are the party of lawyers, the Republicans the party of businessmen. So a coup de pouce putting the courts above elected officials fits right in with the over-lawyered soft-on-crime legal beagles on the left, who concentrate on defense law and tort claims.

The NYT is a Trojan Horse for these judicial oligarchs who pretend to know the law better than elected representatives of the people. The Judiciary's jesuitical assaults on the will of the people, through direct initiatives in states, or the federal legislative appartus along with the presidency, will result in the diminishment of justice and the weakening of national security.

If Bush actually had planned 9/11, as the Dem padded-cell-left is beginning to make popular among the brain-challenged Dem ultra-left, wouldn't GWB have had the planes crash the NYT HQ on 43rd and the UN just up the island on Turtle Bay?

But that would make sense, and logic is the enemy of the hysterics on the left.