Commenter Mike K. reminds us of the crimes of Samir Kuntar:

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. “This is just like what happened to my mother,” I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

Go to Mike K.’s post for a picture of Samir Kuntar, this evil, disgusting child-killer, being lauded by a group of Lebanese jackals.

Appalling.

[posted by Justin Levine]

[Note from Patterico: I haven't followed this controversy other than to scan the recent news story about yellowcake being moved out of Iraq, which struck me as a nonstory because I thought we already knew about that, and it predated the Gulf war. Beyond that, I don't have any opinion. But I would appreciate it if the left-wing morons who keep saying this post was written by "Patterico" take note: there are several hints that this post was written by Justin Levine -- who is not me. Like, under the title, where it says "Justin Levine." Or at the beginning of the post, where it says "Posted by Justin Levine." Since that's not enough for you chuckleheads, I am adding a signature line at the end: "-- Justin Levine" This might get through to maybe half of you. Whatever.]

Nothing to see here. After all, we wouldn’t want to interfere with the speaking tours and book sales from Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson now, would we?

Yes, yes, I know. The diehards who want to defend Plame and Wilson will still say that there is nothing to suggest that this particular yellowcake came from Niger, and it doesn’t prove that that Saddam Hussein specifically tried to buy his yellowcake from that country as opposed to obtaining it elsewhere. But once they make that argument, they are resting on pure legalisms rather than addressing the underlying subtance of the debate over Saddam’s nuclear weapons program.

In case you need reminding that Joe Wilson was already proven to be a liar over his allegations over this matter, I would direct you here, here, and here for starters. You can also consult one of the original source documents here [PDF file - at pgs. 4 through 12, and 37 through 39 in the PDF file's pagination].

But naturally none of this will matter to the Wilsonoid true believers. The Kool-Aid has already been ingested long ago.

[Update: Still need even more resources proving that Wilson and Plame are lying sacks? Check it out here.]

– Justin Levine

John Aravosis asks: Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?

It’s not “nice” to ask the question, but it’s actually a pretty good question. Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won’t let you forget). A lot of people don’t know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain’s military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?

And who better to pose the question than War Hero John Aravosis?

The temptation to become Outrageously Outraged is understandable, and I salute those who give free rein to their anger. Feel free to do so in comments, in fact.

Nevertheless, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it helps Republicans for the public to focus on Aravosis’s question.

Aravosis, in addition to being a punk, obviously doesn’t understand this.

But it’s true.

In 2004, Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt admitted that out of twelve death cases he had heard, he had voted against death in every single one. Although I can’t confirm it, I believe his streak holds to this day. I know of only one decision (not including today’s) since that time, and Reinhardt voted against death there too.

Reinhardt claims that in every such decision, he has simply followed the law. It just so happens that in more than 25 years as a federal appellate judge, he has never seen a single case where the law justifies death.

I believe Rose Bird made similar arguments — before her recall. (Of course, federal judges can’t be recalled.)

Reinhardt continues his streak in a particularly dishonest decision issued today, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by a Los Angeles defense lawyer. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the way the criminal justice system works can easily see through Reinhardt’s ridiculous arguments.

I hope that this case is appealed to the United States Supreme Court. If it is, I have utter confidence that it will be summarily reversed. The only question is whether the High Court finds it worth its while to take a case involving an utter distortion of the law relating to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Details in the extended entry.

(more…)

Can we discard our clear pledges when they become inconvenient?

YES WE CAN!!!

According to a Washington Post editorial from today:

Mr. Obama’s campaign now claims that his earlier promise was not to stay within the public financing system if his opponent agreed to do the same, as Mr. McCain has done, but merely to pursue such an agreement.

Really?

I’m thinking of a word to describe that position. The word I am thinking of rhymes with: “coarse chit.”

Namely, “horseshit.”

At pages 4-5 of this questionnaire are the question and Obama’s answer:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Once again:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: Yes.

“Yes.” Not “Yes, but” or “Yes, with a caveat” or “We’ll have to wait and see.” The answer is “yes.” Period. Full stop.

Well, we have ourselves another Bill Clinton. I guess it depends on what the meaning of “yes” is.

In February, I told you that Obama will go back on his public financing pledge. I said:

He made a promise and he’ll break it.

. . . .

But surely McCain will get some political mileage out of it? Hah! From Big Media? McCain pointing this out will be portrayed as whining, evidence of his weakness and inability to compete on the fundraising front.

I see it all laid out before me like a movie I’m watching right now.

Apparently the L.A. Times is determined to enhance my reputation as a seer, because a recent article bears out my prognostication to the nth degree:

Barack Obama brings many distinctive traits to the 2008 presidential campaign, but one is especially rare for a Democratic candidate: He has an unusual ability to raise lots of money, which he will be able to spend earlier in the election season than his predecessors.

. . . .

Obama is such a strong fundraiser that he is expected to skip the system of federal election funding — freeing him from the timing rules and spending caps that come with it. That will give the Illinois senator the ability to air television spots and organize field staff long before the traditional Labor Day start of general-election campaigning. . . . . Obama has raised three times more than McCain — $265 million to McCain’s $90 million.

The American Thinker sagely describes this article as “an apologia for Obama’s soon-to-be-broken promise.” I’d say that’s pretty accurate.

Notably, as the article extols Obama’s upcoming and inevitable decision to forego public financing, there is nary a mention of Obama’s pledge. Instead, the article exults that “having the money available now means at the very least that Democrats would be better positioned this year to respond to the kind of Swift boat attacks that damaged Kerry during his cash-starved weeks.”

We all know what they mean by “Swift boat attacks.”

When Obama finally does officially wad up his pledge and throws it in the crapper, will the L.A. Times even mention that it ever happened?

Not necessarily. And you can bet that if they do, they’ll quote that “aggressively pursue” language as if it’s the only thing Obama said.

If the L.A. Times tells readers that Obama actually made a clear pledge, I will parade naked down Broadway at high noon the following day for an hour.

You have my solemn word on that. And I will aggressively pursue an agreement with myself to ensure that it actually happens.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arraigned today in a case that will apparently culminate in a public trial. Jan Crawford Greenburg and Dennis Powell report:

Dressed all in white with large glasses and a long gray beard, the man who imagined the unimaginable appeared at his arraignment today for his role as the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, making his first public appearance since he was captured in 2003, was asked by the military judge if he understood that the charges against him could bring the death penalty. Mohammed responded, “That is what I wish. I wish to be martyred” and, he added, “I understand very well.”

Meanwhile, Greenburg has a post at her blog that is, I think, much more personal, direct, and interesting. I found this part fascinating:

It is believed to be the first time the five al-Qaeda suspects have seen each other or spent time together since their capture, and they laughed and gestured at each other at times.

Of the five, only Ramzi Bin al-Shibh was wearing shackles and chained to the floor at his seat. He is the Yemeni who allegedly was supposed to have been a hijacker, but was denied a US visa. In court, he was the most defiant and robust. When the prosecutor announced the charges against him, he turned to the press assembled in the back of the courtroom and smiled broadly and pointed to himself.

I have seen this behavior in criminal courts before: murder defendants laughing it up as a verdict is read that will imprison them for the rest of their lives. Grinning at me and at the victim’s family members.

It’s shocking to see. But it’s just the behavior of gang members.

In some ways, these guys aren’t anything special. They’re garden variety thugs. A public trial may help demystify them.

At the same time, it’s dangerous to underestimate them. Street-level gang members can’t get access to nuclear weapons. Can Al Qaeda? We don’t know, but it’s not impossible.

I’ll say this: I’m very pleased to see Jan Crawford Greenburg covering this. I actually feel like I’ll be getting coverage I can trust.

[posted by Justin Levine]

DRJ has already posted about the story. Michelle Malkin now supplies just a small fraction of the appropriate amount of outrage.

How can such total and complete corruption exist in our government? I continue to be astonished by what utter scumbags our so-called leaders have proven themselves to be time and time again.

- Justin Levine

In an Alan Mittelstaedt piece notable for its lack of connection from reality (Chuck Philips made a simple mistake! Yagman will be vindicated on appeal!), there appears one useful bit of information — Stephen Yagman’s new address . . . in prison:

Stephen Yagman
FCI Butner Low
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 999
Butner, NC 27509

Make sure to send him a friendly note.

When we last checked in on the endless saga of Stephen Yagman’s efforts to avoid prison, he was supposed to be appearing in Judge Wilson’s court on March 17. Patrick Range McDonald of the L.A. Weekly reports that the hearing actually occurred today, and that Yagman was ordered to surrender in one week, on March 31.

At the U.S. Federal Courthouse in downtown today, civil rights attorney Steve Yagman has finally been ordered to surrender to prison authorities on Monday, March 31, at a federal prison and medical facility in Butner, North Carolina. The renegade lawyer, who’s made a career of battling the LAPD and the feds, will soon no longer be a free man.

Read Patrick’s post to see how Yagman tried to weasel out of it yet again.

Regular readers know I have been following the saga of Stephen Yagman’s bid to avoid incarceration for months. It looks like he may be finally going in on St. Patty’s Day:

According to the U. S. Attorney’s spokesman Thom Mrozek, Federal Judge Stephen V. Wilson is being asked to order the incarceration of convicted Civil Rights Attorney Stephen Yagman who has been free on Appeal following his conviction earlier this year of 19 felony counts, including tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud and money laundering. The hearing in Los Angeles Federal Court is scheduled for Monday, March 17, 2007 at 11 a.m. Judge Wilson had acquitted Yagman on six counts, after the jury conviction on all counts and now is being asked to order incarceration following the denial of Yagman’s appeal.

My last post about this ongoing saga was on January 31, when I noted that Yagman’s surrender was once again being delayed, while a federal motions panel ruled on his appeal of Judge Wilson’s denial of his motion for bail pending appeal. At the time, it appeared that Yagman’s appeal would only buy him a couple of weeks, but it has bought him about a month and a half. I nevertheless observed:

You can’t stay out forever, Yagman. The day will come when you have to surrender and head off to the pokey.

I’ll be here to gloat about it.

I’m still here, Yagman. And when you get taken into custody on Monday, I’ll be wearing green as I pop the cap on a bottle of beer to celebrate.

Do they have beer in prison, Yagman? I don’t think they do.

“We wouldn’t have been there in the first place if girls weren’t getting naked in the first place.”

“You know, I don’t believe you should judge a man by the worst day in his life.”

More gold:

Ten years ago, we filmed Ruby and OJ walking on Venice Beach. Before long, we were surrounded by a large, but good-humoured crowd. A man came out of the sea of faces to approach OJ, with his arm outstretched. “I’ve wanted to do this for a long time,” he said, as he shook Simpson’s hand. “No sweat, buddy,” said OJ, smiling warmly, “Do you want an autograph?” “No, thanks,” said the man, “I just want to be able to say that I’ve shaken hands with a murderer.” The smile froze on OJ’s face before he walked away.

That guy is my hero.

At this point, we were joined by a young woman called Christie Prody. She was leggy and blonde. OJ took me to one side. “I don’t want her in the film,” he said. “She’s not my girlfriend.” Later, I spoke to Christie.

“Are you going out with OJ?”

“Sure.”

“He says you’re not his girlfriend.”

“Oh, that’s just OJ.”

I asked Mike Gilbert to clarify. “He’s going out with her. But she’s not his girlfriend.”

“She looks a lot like Nicole.” [She actually does. -- Patterico]

“Yeah — well, I guess that’s his type.”

In more ways than one, unfortunately:

This February, Christie Prody was hospitalised with extensive bruising and bleeding in her brain. She appeared to have been badly beaten. According to OJ, she had fallen down the stairs while drunk. According to the hospital, there was no alcohol in her bloodstream. Perhaps she is now entitled to call herself OJ’s girlfriend.

Read it all.