Geert Wilders Defines the Issues: Free Speech & Civilization

Bare Naked Islam posted a video clip of Geert Wilders addressing the judicial panel of his retrial.  The video is in Dutch with English sub titles. 

    In this speech, Wilders asserts that the light of Western Civilization is being snuffed out by Islamization.  He also drives home the issue of freedom of expression.

"The lights are going out slowly all over Europe.  All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization.  the foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.

    All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us four fourteen centuries.  An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom.

    The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve, the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity.

    With everything in me I believe the ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and  can only produce societies that are b ackwaqrd and impoverished.

     Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology. My trial is not an isolated incident.  Only fools believe it is.  All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations.Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe - a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

    The lights are going out all over Europe.  Anyone who thinks or speaks indivdually is at risk.  Freedom-loving  citizens who criticize Islam or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing must suffer, and are threatened, persecuted or criminalized.  Those who speak the truth are in danger. 

    The lights are going out allover Europe.  Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think. 

    Chairman, members of the court:  This trial is not about me.  itr is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country.  it is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people.  For  centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology. Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right.  Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.  the lights are going out all over Europe.  Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said there last year: It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of a free people - to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom.

     Hence it is a right and a duty - and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament - to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam.  I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphing from this trial.  I hope not only that i shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe. "

My opinion is that Wilders is more relaxed and fluent in the retrial than he was in the first round.  He appears to sense impending victory. I suspect that he may have had some coaching.  This trial is likely to make history no matter what the outcome.

Geert Wilders on Trial: Prosecutors Dump Case So What?

Reuters reports in a terse article that the Prosecution moved for dismissal on the remaining counts against Geert Wilders. It appears that they differentiate between Islam and Muslims. It is further suggested that Wilders, as a politician, has a right to discuss social problems.  

    Gates of Vienna has further information. Click here for the complete article, summarizing the Prosecutor's report. Links are provided to the Prosecutor's summary, in two parts.

• http://www.om.nl/publish/pages/123465/summarypublicprosecutorclosingspeechgwilders_part1.pdf
• http://www.om.nl/publish/pages/123638/summarypublicprosecutorclosingspeechgwilders_part2.pdf

Part one, seven pages long, relates to the first motion to dismiss a single charge from 10/12.  

    If the motion is granted, and if acquittal results,  and if the decision is upheld on appeal then  the precedent  may extend only to political office holders, not to citizens.

A politician will , pre-eminently, have a great extent of freedom to
persuade others to follow his political views. The articles on discrimination in the Dutch Criminal Code
may constitute a possible restriction of said freedom.

    An element of ambiguity creeps in regarding the truth defense.  Truth is not a defense but provision of substantiation must be considered.

The truth

Wilders has indicated before that he cannot be liable to punishment since what he says is the truth.
The truthfulness of Wilders’ statements is by no means being judged in this trial. This is quite irrelevant
for the assessment from a criminal law perspective, since the statements concerned constitute
Wilders’ opinion. His statements, reflecting his opinion, can be assessed in order to determine whether
any provisions concerning discrimination have been violated. Pursuant to European case law, the
question whether Wilders provides (any) factual substantiation for his statements must indeed be
considered. [Emphasis added,]

    Precedents are discussed, from the ECHR. Then comes this tempting tidbit.  In assessing this, bear in mind its singular application to opposition politicians and the precedents discussed here. Take careful note of the caution which follows the quote on pg. 4.

A discussion of general interest may involve a certain degree of exaggeration and provocation, i.e. a certain degree of excessiveness.

The other side of the coin is that statements which generate feelings of rejection and hostility and incite hatred, may indeed be punishable. Political statements which incite hatred constitute a threat to peace in society and political stability in democratic states. Politicians must be very careful, since their goal is to accede to power. It is essential that politicians avoid using words that could propagate intolerance.

    Another prime tidbit emerges from the legalese.

The Supreme Court does not consider the statement ‘stop the tumor called Islam” to be punishable since the statement does not unequivocally refer to a group of people because of their religion.

    Take careful note of the detail elucidated in the succeeding paragraph.

It is quite conceivable that people who feel very connected to their religion, feel that they (too) are being discriminated against when their religion is being criticized. However, from a legal perspective there is a strict distinction between a statement that refers to a religion and a statement that relates to people who adhere to that religion. Criticizing the opinions or the behavior of those who belong to the group, particularly including behavior directly related to or directly emanating from the religion, is not punishable. Criticizing a religion is not punishable, even if it is in very coarse language. Any hurt feelings may not be considered in the legal assessment of the element “insulting about a group of people”

    How will you unscramble this egg?

Only impairing the self-respect or discrediting the group because it belongs to a specific race, has a specific religion or philosophy of life, is punishable. Feelings of the group are , as stated above, not considered in this respect. [Emphasis added.]

    Read between the lines, inter alia, as they say in the UN resolutions.

When a statement is a contribution to the public debate, is made in the context of a religious conviction or in the context of an artistic expression, it can dispel the insulting nature of the statement. This does not necessarily mean that the statement is in practice experienced as less serious; this concerns the juristic construction as applied by the Supreme Court. We only focus on the public debate because it is important in this trial.

  
    Part two discusses the other charges and delves into the legislative  climate.

When the sections were introduced, avoiding unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression was considered to be very important. Accordingly, no obstacles under criminal law were imposed on criticizing views, even if such criticism were offensive. Criticism of the deepest convictions among religious people and of religion itself and the institutes and organisations based on religion is permitted, and the same holds true for Section 137d Sr. Criticism is punishable, however, if it unmistakably targets the actual people, and not merely their views, convictions and conduct.

I don't think the OIC will let that set precedent.
  
    Dangerous ambiguity is encountered on the third page of Part 2.

Intent

The word ‘intent’ does not appear in the description of the offence in Section 137d Sr. Still, ‘instigating hatred or discrimination’ is regarded as an intentional offence. The intent requirement is contained in the word ‘instigate’.
Section 137d Sr is a formal offence. This means that the possible consequence that may or may not ensue from the offence, or the likelihood of that consequence, does not determine whether the description of the offence has been fulfilled. The intent of the suspect need not concern a specific consequence or a specific likelihood of that consequence. The intent is present, if the suspect mustnecessarily have been aware of the hate-instigating nature of the expressions used. [Emphasis added.]

    This gets boiled down to essence near the end of page 4. The reference is plural, to Fitna, a letter to the editor and several interviews.

Statements about Islam and the Koran are not instigations of hatred against people.

  There is too much legal detail in part one of the Prosecutor's summation, and I am not a lawyer.  I have no doubt that this case will be appealed.  By this time, lawyers for the OIC must have gone over Part 1 with a microscope, in preparation for appeals. More importantly, their analysis will certainly be reflected in future resolutions and protocols.  I hope that ECLJ, Art19, IHEU and others are intensely pouring over the whole set of documents in preparation for round two.

        In essence, the Prosecutors have pissed on the OIC's  defamation platform without extinguishing the fire. The resulting steam explosion  may have devastating consequences.   Expect riots. Expect boycotts. Anticipate renewed vigor in the drive  toward institution of Islamic blasphemy law through a binding protocol to ICERD. 

Geert Wilders Trial: Truth is No Defense

Google published an article from Canada Free Press about recent developments in the trial of Geert Wilders.  One prosecutorial qoute  stands out like sore thumb and must be addressed.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to Jihad Watch.

"You can expect a politician to be aware of the impact of his words and in any case, the legal limit may not be crossed, no matter how important it may be to address supposed problems and to contribute to matters of general interest,"   Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel [Emphasis added.]

    The relevant statutory provisions are revealed in the summons.  Expressions which "insult a group of people"  and/or " incites hatred or discrimination" against them are arbitrarily prohibited.  No defenses are allowed.  

    If Muslims, motivated by the normative doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammad's Sunnah, murder film makers, assault homosexuals, threaten members of parliament and pose an existential threat to the cultural identity and continuance of a free & democratic Netherlands, public disclosure of the facts is prohibited and can not be excused on grounds of necessity.  

    Besides mandating national suicide, the prosecutor has a severe cognitive dissonance problem. She moved for dismissal of charges of insulting Muslims because the insult was to Islamic ideology, not to Muslims.  If the insult was to Islam, then the incitement &  discrimination must also be against Islam,  not Muslims.  All of the charges should be dropped, they should never have been filed.  

Geert Wilders on Trial: Testimony of Wafa Sultan

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Vlad Tepes for  embedding these informative videos.  In these two videos, with a total run time of 19:14, we hear the  chairman of the judicial panel reading from the testimony of expert witness Wafa Sultan.  

    I doubt that the judge was comfortable reading that content, but he made an obvious effort to avoid displaying his disgust. His relief is obvious when he finishes reading the testimony.  The defendant and his lawyer were obviously struggling to maintain decorum.  A few  audience members in the gallery were not so successful in maintaining  a straight face.  A good view of the prosecution side might have been priceless.  

    Unfortunately, the dry reading of her testimony lacks the passion with which Sultan drove her points home in an interview the day before her testimony.
[Wafa Sultan Interview  ]

    Though lacking the chapter & verse specificity of  previous testimony, Sultan confirms it  plus Fitna and Wilders' statements.  She illustrated her testimony with examples from her own  experience in her early life in Syria.

    If truth were a defense against the charges  on which Wilders is being tried, Sultan's testimony would be devastating to the prosecution's case. Had her testimony been  public and properly covered by the news media, it would be devastating to Islam.  

Testimony of Wafa Sultan Part 1 12:01

Part 2  7:13

Geert Wilders & Free Speech on Trial

Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert  Wilders.  Run time is only 4:41,  but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly.  On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the  chairman of the bench.  It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of  delving deeper into the issues.  It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring.  I need to replay the video.

    I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman's opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert's remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons.

    What is the big deal about debate?  Does the court desire to  engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed?  

    Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject?   He stands by  his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them.  Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published?  Does the court expect the defense to prove every point?  Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof?  

    It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.

KSM Confession Renders Trial Redundant

In December, I uttered and published a critical analysis of a confession which was signed and submitted to a military tribunal by Khalid Sheikh Momammed and his excellent companions. Since that post, a prior decision to try the terrorists in a civilian court located near the scene of the attack was withdrawn, pending a new decision which might place the trial in a different venue or transfer it to a military tribunal, where it belongs.

In reality, given the confession, there is no need of a trial. What is needed is a soaking in pigs blood and summary execution. In evidence whereof I submit to you the second and last paragraphs of the confession. They said that they participated in the attack, that it was their "religious duty" and expressed their pride in what they have done.

With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God. In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the \land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites. Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites,and their religion as a whole.

Verse 195, AI-Baqara: ((And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to your destruction, but do good; for Allah loves those who do good.))

We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god's cause is a great duty in our religion. We have news for you, the news is: You will be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq and that America will fall, politically, militarily, and economically. Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. We will raise from the
ruins, God willing. We will leave this imprisonment with our noses raised high in dignity, as the lion emerges from his den. We shall pass over the blades of the sword into the gates of heaven.

So we ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to
place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise.

God is great and pride for God, the prophet, and the believers....

Call a halt to the dithering. Cancel the trial and usher the demon spawn into Hell; let us be done with it, inexpensively and expeditiously. Stake them to the bottom of several pit toilets in Central Park and hold a big picnic with plenty of bbq, watermelon and beer. When the pits are full, remove the outhouses and plant apple trees in their place.

Remember those who died, those who suffered great injury and their survivors. Let us firmly resolve that the second attack on the World Trade Center will be the last; let us begin the long process of ridding the world of the demonic war cult whose doctrines mandate perpetual attacks against us.

Pat Condell on the Trial of Free Speech

Bare Naked Islam posted a video of Pat Condell letting fly at those responsible for the trial of Geert Wilders. The fast talking Mr. Condell has a a way with words & wit that endears him to a loyal band of fans.

I have transcribed the video because Condell's pace makes contemplation difficult. Some of the concepts involved need a little time to be absorbed properly. The title is "The Crooked Judges of Amsterdam". I wonder if they can reach across the channel to haul him up on charges of contempt of court? His words leave no doubt about his attitude toward political correctness, multiculturalism, Islam, the Dutch law under which Wilders is charged and the legal process involved.

Condell is attributing two murders to p.c. and multiculturalism, implying that they set the stage for the murders. He attributes the trial to immorality and cowardice, accusing European governments of selling the citizen's birthright: free speech, out from under them. By his lights, a cowardly regime is persecuting a heroic parliamentarian for defending his civilization against an invading parasitic predator. They are pandering to Islam out of intimidation.

As you watch the video and read the transcript, bear in mind that the process taking place in Amsterdam is one the OIC wants to see duplicated in every Western nation where free speech once prevailed. They are demanding that criticism of Islam be outlawed nationally and internationally.

We have no lever of power with which to affect the travesty unfolding in Amsterdam. We can observe and criticize, venting as Condell has done, but we need to do more. We need to be vigilant to prevent or reverse the enactment by our own legislatures, of legislation patterned after that of the Netherlands or modeled on the resolutions passed by the UN and Human Rights Council in recent years.

We need to turn Islam's own weapon against it in a legal counter attack by pointing out the fact that orthodox Islamic doctrines and practices violate provisions of ICERD,. ICCPR & CPPCG which require that it be proscribed by law. The International Qur'an Petition is our way of turning the tables on Islam. We must exploit it to the hilt. Sign it, copy it, paste it into an email to everyone you can hope to influence and exhort the recipients to sign and forward it.

This week in an Amsterdam courtroom, we saw the beginning of what could be both the trial of the century and the crime of the century. What an honor for the Netherlands so early in the century. Well this determined statement of dhimmitude we've yet seen in Europe, and thats saying something, the Dutch Authorities are pushing ahead with the prosecution of an elected parliamentarian for the crime of embarrassing them with the truth.

There's an ideological fervor about this prosecution thats almost religious in its intensity. because lets be clear that this is a heresy trial by any other name. They can't refute Mr. Wilders' statements since they've resorted to the kind of cheap legal stunt that we'd expect from the likes of Mugabe to shut their opponent up.

They've accused him of being divisive and inflammatory and yes, sometimes the truth can be divisive and inflammatory but its been suppressed for long enough and its become sufficiently taboo as it clearly has in the Netherlands because, according to the prosecution, it doesn't even matter that what he says is true, what matters is that its illegal.

Well, when the truth is against the law, then there's something seriously wrong with the law. Because when the truth is no defense, there is no defense. and the law has no anchor, so it may drift wherever the wind of political expedience blows. And this week it blew straight into a crooked courtroom in Amsterdam, where Justice will now be made to fight for its life, starved of the oxygen of truth that gives it life.

These are desperate tactics from desperate people who've tied themselves up in such knots of relativist guilt they're incapable of acknowledging the truth let alone dealing with it. They're like somebody whose prepared to chop off their own hand to avoid being seen scratching their ass in public. What makes it worse is that clinging to something that doesn't even exist--the multicultural bubble burst a long time ago when Pim Fortuyn: was murdered, when Theo van Gogh. was murdered, both for the crime of expressing an opinion in what's supposed to be one of the world's leading liberal democracies. It was then that the Dutch people, better than anybody else in Europe, came face to face with multiculturalism--what it really is and what it really means.

On the surface, it sounds like a pleasant word , invoking a kind of rainbow society of mutually enriching cultural perspectives, and what could be better than that? But that's not what it is at all and that was never the intention. If they'd been honest from the start about what it really is: Islamization, they know that they'd never have been allowed to get away with it. But people are beginning to realize that now Islam is in fact what they're getting and and its all they're getting and that's why the Freedom Party is leading the opinion polls in the Netherlands from nowhere in just a few short years.

And its also why the ruling class is so desperate to destroy Mr. Wilders before the next election, because they know that his views are popular enough to change things, to put an end to the multicultural lie and give the Dutch people back their country and that's why he is facing trial. Can I say that?

Maybe we shouldn't be too surprised its come to this, after all they do have a history of ganging up on their popular politicians in the Netherlands. Isn't that how Pim Fortuyn: was murdered? Some leftist lunatic took the establishment and the press at their word that he was a public menace for opposing Islamization and killed him for it. The next day, all the people who'd been vilifying him were suddenly his best friends, they were shocked -- how could this have happened? But they all know how it happened, the whole world knows how it happened and if it hadn't happened this trial wouldn't be taking place today.because Islam wouldn't be the problem it is today and maybe Amsterdam would still be the one of the world's favorite cities and not the kind of place where gay people are afraid to go out for fear of being beaten up by gangs of Muslim youths. .

The Dutch ruling class has shown that its prepared to stoop to anything, even as far as undermining the very cornerstone of Western Civilization, freedom of speech to prop up a rotten ideology that is not only dead but whose corpse is now beginning to smell. and you know that smell, its that pungent mix of authoritarianism and cowardice that we've all become depressingly familiar with.

Certainly, here in Britain, we know all about it, we've had twelve years of it and we haven't forgotten the shameful events of this time last year when Mr. Wilders was refused entry to Britain because our government allowed itself to be bullied and threatened by a handful of Muslim loud mouths who took it upon themselves to suppress free speech in a free country and and were allowed to get away with it because otherwise they might have been offended oh, perish the thought!

Why the Hell shouldn't Muslims be offended, what are they anyway, babies? Nobody gives a damn how offended the rest of us are at having our culture squatted on by an aggressive religious totalitarianism and being told to shut up about it. And that's why this trial is not just about the Netherlands, it affects all of us. Now the Dutch people have got a well deserved reputation for tolerance and open mindedness, the very qualities many argue have gotten us into this mess in the first place so they're a bit further down the road of multicultural dhimmitude than most countries, but its a road that we're all traveling in the West and if we stay on it, we'll all arrive at the same unhappy cross roads in another court room in another country; its only a matter of time.

Fear of free speech is a symptom of a profoundly neurotic and dishonest society which is what we've got on our hands now. All over the Western world its the same sorry story. We have governments and police forces who cringe before Islam while fiddling away our civil liberties because of Islam. We have a media that can't even use the word Islam in connection with terrorism when the two things couldn't be more intimately connected if they were Siamese twins yet they're quite happy to label Mr. Wilders as a "far right politician" in the kind of casual slander that passes for journalism these days. especially at the wretched BBC who have been too politically correct even to acknowledge that this trial is taking place.

Anyone who isn't angry and ashamed that it is taking place doesn't deserve to live in a free society. The trial has already left as dark a stain on Dutch history as McCarthyism left on American history and its only going to get worse because not only have the crooked judges denied Mr. Wilders the witnesses he needs to defend himself, but they've also made sure that the trial will coincide with the election campaign making it as difficult as possible for him to put his case to the people.

This man is a hero, not a criminal and its time the rest of stood up and said so loud and clear because there is too much at stake to be polite anymore. And there's too much at stake to be afraid anymore. This intellectual terrorism has got to stop. Our birthright is being deliberately sold from under us by people who don't have the right of ownership.and we are now on the verge of bequeathing our children and grandchildren the kind of society that we wouldn't want to be born into; it doesn't get any more immoral or cowardly than that. You know, in the English Language we have an expression "Dutch courage", its not really courage at all, its the kind of courage you get when you've had a bit too much alcohol to drink-- well there is this new expression: "Dutch justice" its not really justice at all, its the kind of justice you get when you've overdosed on cultural relativism and your spine has completely disappeared.

Shame on the Netherlands; shame on the Western media for not raising a howl of protest against this outrageous attack on our basic freedom and shame upon shame on the crooked judges of Amsterdam. Was there something else? Oh yeah, peace, would be nice, wouldn't it?

Wilders Trial Web Site

Wilders On Trial

The court rejected fifteen proposed defense witnesses. They also ruled that the testimony of the three witnesses they allowed will be heard in camera, greatly reducing the potential educational value of the proceeding.

Only Hans Jansen, Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan were allowed to be heard as expert-witnesses. Their testimony will be heard in a session behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must remain a secret.

This information comes from one of two new Geert Wilders web sites, one in Dutch and this one in English for the international audience.
The site includes these features.

• the summons in pdf format
• summary of the proceedings
• Wilders' statement (video)
• links to press coverage

It appears that mainstream media coverage of the trial may be rather light. So far I have not heard anything about it on ABC radio news, BBC's The World or NPR's Morning Edition. The Wilders defense web site may be our best way of keeping up with the progress of the trial.

Radio Netherlands Worldwide had what may be the most important quote.

Reacting to the rulings later, Mr Wilders told journalists outside the courtroom, "This court doesn't seem to be interested in the truth. I can only conclude that the court is not going to let me have a fair trial. I have no respect for this."

In this quote, Wilders restated the obvious. The prosecutor had decided that the charges were not worth holding a trial over before being overruled by a court under pressure.

KSM Trial Petition

Human Events and Red State have created an on line petition demanding reversal of the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four other terrorists in New York City. They list seven relevant points bearing on the idiocy of the decision.

1. jurisprudence: bad precedent
2. risk of technical acquittal
3. role inversion, putting the U.S.A. on trial
4. reversion to 9/10 criminal offense paradigm
5. revelation of state secrets
6. excessive security expense
7. attractive target for renewed attack

Jed Babbin Editor of Human Events, has written an excellent editorial which clarifies the issues very forcefully. .A Facebook group has been created to support the petition.

If you understand and care about the consequences of applying the law enforcement paradigm to acts of war, then you will join with me and 20,297 others who have signed the on line petition demanding that the terrorists be tried by military tribunals far from our vulnerable cities.

Flight 93 father denounces civilian trial for 9/11 terrorists

How would you feel about the Civilian court trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad & assoc. if you were the surviving parent, child or spouse of one of the victims of the Abomination? How would the continuous news reports about jury selection, pretrial motions and outrageous statements by the defendants affect you?

What if the guilty get off on a technicality, having been granted undeserved Constitutional immunities and privileges reserved for citizens? If, like me, you are ready to scream "HELL NO!!!", then sign this petition sponsored by the ACLJ.


Flight 93 father denounces civilian trial for 9/11 terrorists Tom Burnett Sr:

A military trial will do the same thing--give them justice, give them a chance to talk--but not out, you know, in the public.

Nicely framed and edited by KSTP Minneapolis: Second Burnett interview here. If only our government, with all its resources, could make 1/100th the sense of this honest patriot, but honesty and patriotism seem to be completely absent from the Obama/Holder makeup. Mr. Burnett says he will fight. Mr. Burnett is also trying to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave Video expose of what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace design, contains footage of Mr. Burnett and Alec Rawls (author of this blogburst post) at last year's Memorial Project meeting: To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.