Transcript: 'Face The Nation' (11-15-09)

Read the transcript (alternative source) for 'Face The Nation' (11-15-09):

Congressman, I will start with you. You're the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. I want to get your take about the announcement that they will try Sheikh Mohammed in New York, just blocks from ground zero. Most Republicans seem to think this is a bad idea. Most of the Democrats seem to think it's a good idea.

HOEKSTRA: And I think most Americans are going to think that this is a bad idea.

This is ideology run wild. We're going to go back into New York City, the scene of the tragedy on 9/11. We're now going to rip that wound wide open and it's going to stay open for, what, two, three, four years as we go through the circus of a trial in New York City?

SCHIEFFER: Do you think it's going to take two, three or four years?

HOEKSTRA: Well, you never know. You can bet that folks that are going to be tried and their lawyers are going to try to use this opportunity to extend it as long as they can, because this is what they wanted. They wanted center stage, and they're going to want to keep it for as long as they can. They will bring every motion forward that they can that will drag this trial out.

SCHIEFFER: The fact is, he did ask to be brought to New York when he was first arrested. And we all know he has confessed to this. Do you think it will just turn into some sort of a propaganda show? HOEKSTRA: Well, that will be their objective. Obviously, our attorney general, our legal system, will try to keep it dignified and civil and bring some respect to it. But that's not what KSM is going to try to do. They're going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus, and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology.

SCHIEFFER: What -- I guess the question I'd have, what would you have done? Something has to be done with these people.

HOEKSTRA: I'd do exactly what the president is doing with some of the other people that they have down in Guantanamo. The president has said for some of these other individuals, we will use military tribunals. And he hasn't really, you know, demonstrated to us as to why some are going to go into New York and be tried there and why others are going to go through military tribunals.

He clearly has said military tribunals are an appropriate step to use, but he hasn't said why it's OK for one, for another.

I would have put him through the military tribunal process. We started that process. They pled guilty. Why won't the president take guilty for an answer and say now let's go on to the sentencing phase?

SCHIEFFER: Do you believe, I mean, is it your basic belief that these terrorists do not deserve a trial in an American court and the benefits that come with that?

HOEKSTRA: Not an American civilian court. I believe that they have certain protections that they would get in a tribunal. But to give them all of the extraordinary protections that you and I have as American citizens, and to give that to KSM, people who have mocked the American system, who want to do everything that they can do to destroy it, and now give them those extraordinary protections that we enjoy -- yes, I think that's a bad decision.

Transcript: 'FOX News Sunday' (11-15-09): Senators McConnell and Reed

Read the transcript of Senators Mitch McConnell and Jack Reed appearance on 'FOX News Sunday' (11-15-09), with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: I want to start where we ended with Mayor Giuliani. Military commissions have been reformed by Congress. Attorney General Holder announced Friday he is going to use them...

REED: Right.

WALLACE: ... as a legitimate legal forum to try five of the other Guantanamo detainees. Why not use them for the alleged 9/11 conspirators?

REED: Well, first of all, these 9/11 conspirators are heinous criminals, terrorists. The damage they've done to New York and the nation are significant. And they have to be treated, I think, fairly but with all due process, but with great, I think, sensitivity to the crimes they've committed against America.

The attorney general pointed out very clearly that there are several factors -- the location of the incident, the type of victims, the investigative services that are engaged in this process -- and that led him to conclude that the best forum -- and also, I think as a prosecutor -- the best forum to guarantee the success of the prosecution was a federal court, and in this case in New York City.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about a point that Mayor Giuliani made, that the Obama administration is holding these -- his allegation is -- holding these trials in New York in civilian court to make a political statement -- this president is different than the last president, and to say to the world, "We're different."

REED: Well, as you pointed out, in 2006, Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, under the Bush administration was tried in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Giuliani was one who testified in the penalty phase and he, as you indicated, claimed this was a symbol of American justice, as he said in 1993.

But this was not 1993. This was 2006. The alternative existed for a military tribunal then. The Bush administration decided to make the case in federal court. They succeeded. A hundred and ninety or so terrorists have been convicted in federal courts, only a handful -- less than 10 -- in tribunals.

There are 200 individuals serving time in federal facilities now for their terrorist crimes. So what was a statesmanlike decision by the Bush administration can't be a political decision by this administration.

WALLACE: Before we get into some of the specific risks, let me ask you a more fundamental question a lot of people are asking. Why do these men, allegedly enemy combatants who have declared war on the U.S. -- why do they deserve the same constitutional protections as an American citizen?

REED: Well, the court has determined that they deserve some constitutional protection. That was the whole issue in the Hamdan case and other cases by the Supreme Court.

WALLACE: But they could have fewer constitutional protections in a military commission.

REED: They could have if they were tried under military law under the provisions we set up. But they're also criminals. And I think this debate about are we playing into the hands of terrorists -- all of these, particularly the sheikh, Mohammed, wants to be considered a holy warrior, a jihadist.

And if we try him before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want. These are heinous murderers.

Sex infections still growing in U.S., says CDC

More evidence were becoming a third world nation.

in reference to:

"Latest statistics on chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis show the three highly treatable infections continue to spread in the United States. "Chlamydia and gonorrhea are stable at unacceptably high levels and syphilis is resurgent after almost being eliminated," said John Douglas, director of the division of sexually transmitted diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We have among the highest rates of STDs of any developed country in the world," Douglas added in a telephone interview. The administration of President Barack Obama has signaled a willingness to move away from so-called abstinence-only sex education approaches promoted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and conservative state and local governments. Several studies have shown such approaches do not work well and that it is better to encourage abstinence while also offering children and teens information about how to protect themselves from diseases as well as pregnancy. "We haven't been promoting the full battery of messages," Douglas said. "We have been sending people out with one seatbelt in the whole car." SOARING RATES The CDC's latest study on STDs found: * 1.2 million cases of chlamydia were reported in 2008, up from 1.1 million in 2007. * Nearly 337,000 cases of gonorrhea were reported. * Adolescent girls 15 to 19 years had the most chlamydia and gonorrhea cases of any age group at 409,531."
- Sex infections still growing in U.S., says CDC - Yahoo! News (view on Google Sidewiki)

Apology for kids sent from Britain to colonies

This is a reminder of how capital, by way of the government (even in democracies), have exploited whites and non-whites alike. Millions of children still suffer worldwide working under terrible conditions while their government ignores their plight. The solution is not socialism but greater democracy; true democracy.

in reference to:

"Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized Monday to thousands of impoverished British children shipped to Australia in past centuries with the promise of a better life, only to suffer abuse and neglect thousands of miles from home. At a ceremony in the Australian capital of Canberra attended by tearful former child migrants, Rudd apologized for his country's role in the migration and extended condolences to the 7,000 survivors of the program who still live in Australia. "We are sorry," Rudd said. "Sorry that as children you were taken from your families and placed in institutions where so often you were abused. Sorry for the physical suffering, the emotional starvation and the cold absence of love, of tenderness, of care. Sorry for the tragedy — the absolute tragedy — of childhoods lost.""
- Apology for kids sent from Britain to colonies - Europe- msnbc.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Transcript: 'State of the Union' (11-15-09): David Axelrod

Read the complete transcript of David Axelrod's appearance on CNN's 'State of the Union' (11-15-09). Except below:

KING: Let’s begin with the controversial decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 alleged conspirators in the federal courts in New York City, just a short walk from the site of the twin towers collapsing. Many Republicans are criticizing this, but it’s not just Republicans. This is Jim Webb , Democratic senator from Virginia who says, “they do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.” Why, David Axelrod, did the administration decide to take this step?

AXELROD: Well, I think for the same reason that Mayor Bloomberg and others felt strongly that we should.

We believe that these folks should be tried in New York City, as you say, near where their heinous acts were conducted, in full view in our court system, which we believe in.

We’ve had, you know, since 2001, have had 195 terrorism cases in the courts, and we’ve been successful 91 percent of the time. We’re very confident about these cases, and we believe this is the appropriate thing to do.

This is a judgment the attorney general made in concert with the secretary of defense. As you know, there were five other cases that were sent to military commissions, but we feel strongly that justice will be done here.

And frankly it’s been a long time in coming. A lot of these cases have been delayed for many, many years. And now, the people who suffered so much in that attack will get the justice they deserve.

KING: We will have later in the program the former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who of course was the mayor when the horrible tragedy of 9/11 took place. And he is among those who say, to him, this reflects returning to a pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. How would you answer that?

AXELROD: You know, it is odd, because when the 20th 9/11 bomber was tried in Virginia, in a civilian court, and convicted, Mayor Giuliani testified in that case and he heralded the outcome. So he may have changed his view, but we haven’t changed ours.

KING: You mentioned this was the attorney general’s decision. How involved was the president of the United States?

AXELROD: Well, the president was informed of the attorney general’s decision and his reasoning for the decision. This was a decision for the attorney general to make, in concert with the secretary of defense. KING: It is a reminder bringing these terrorists to New York City for trial, alleged terrorists, a reminder of the controversy about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are just now two months and one week away from this promise from the president of the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: If you talk, David Axelrod, to top officials at the Pentagon, top officials at the building you work at, in the White House, they say now it is a near impossibility that that deadline will be kept. When will Gitmo be closed?

AXELROD: We believe we are going to substantially meet the deadline. We may not hit it on the date, but we will close Guantanamo. And we are making good progress toward doing that.

KING: Any idea? Two months, four months, six months more?

AXELROD: I’m not going to put a deadline on it, John. But we are going to get it done. We are moving toward getting it done in all the different dimensions that are necessary to get it done. The president believes it is important to get it done and to end this chapter in our history. And we are going to get it done.

KING: Part of this chapter in our history is the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, were hatched in Afghanistan. And the president is closer to making this big decision he has to make about how many troops. When he makes that decision, will he lay out for the American people not only the rationale for the decision he has made, but an exit strategy for Afghanistan? If you travel the country as I do all the time, people keep saying, eight years later, how long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost? How many lives will be lost? Will the president give us an exit strategy?

AXELROD: Well, I think that is a concern. And it is obviously one of the factors the president is thinking through. We have been there for eight years; it is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda. That remains our purpose.

But obviously we can not make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing out troops home at some point. And the president has made that clear in all these discussions. There has to be a framework to this decision.

But we are getting close. It has been a good process.

Netanyahu Threatens to Retaliate if Palestinians Declare Statehood

The Israeli government would love to perpetuate apartheid indefinitely. As I've said many times, the Palestinians have to engage in peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience. Then they would get their state.

in reference to:

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to retaliate if Palestinians declare a unilateral state, saying such a move would unravel existing agreements with the Israelis. Netanyahu’s stern comments come the same day that a senior Palestinian official told Fox News they are considering a U.N. resolution to declare a Palestinian state. Palestinian officials had said Sunday they were preparing to ask the United Nations to endorse an independent state without Israel's consent because they were losing faith in the peace talks."
- Netanyahu Threatens to Retaliate if Palestinians Declare Statehood - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Lawyers Earn Fees From Law They Wrote

It's a nice racket the lawyers have rigged. They profit coming and going. They win we lose.

in reference to:

"Every lawsuit filed or even threatened under a California law aimed at electing more minorities to local offices — and all of the roughly $4.3 million from settlements so far — can be traced to just two people: a pair of attorneys who worked together writing the statute, The Associated Press has found. The law makes it easier for lawyers to sue and win financial judgments in cases arising from claims that minorities effectively were shut out of local elections, while shielding attorneys from liability if the claims are tossed out. The law was drafted mainly by Seattle law professor Joaquin Avila, with advice from lawyers including Robert Rubin, legal director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Avila, Rubin's committee and lawyers working with them have collected or billed local governments about $4.3 million in three cases that settled, and could reap more from two pending lawsuits. That's only a fraction of what might come. Dozens of cities and school boards have been warned they could be sued under the 2002 California Voting Rights Act."
- Jackpot: Lawyers Earn Fees From Law They Wrote - ABC News (view on Google Sidewiki)

Transcript: Meet The Press (11-15-09): Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State, Hillay Clinton, appeared on Meet the Press, along with Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton. Complete transcript. Excerpt below:

GREGORY: Newt Gingrich -- conservative Republican, former House speaker -- why is this a vision that you support?

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, education is the number one factor in our future prosperity, it's the number one factor in national security and it's the number one factor in these young people having a decent future. I agree with Al Sharpton, this is the number one civil right of the 21st century.

So if you -- if the president has shown real leadership -- which he has. This is, a lot of places we fight. On this one he has said every parent should know whether the school's good. Every student should have transparency about a results. Every parent should have the right to choose a charter school. Now, I -- I would go further. I'd like to have a Pell Grant for K through 12. But this is a huge step for this president to take.

GREGORY: Can we just take a minute to explain how a charter school works?

GINGRICH: Well, Arne knows more than I do about this. But basically, a charter school operates within a framework of direct public funding but is allowed to be more innovative, have its own work rules, have its own model of activity, very often has a specialized focus. But do you want to expand on that for a second? Because you're the authority.

DUNCAN: I just want to say, as a country, we need more good schools. And good charter schools are a piece of the answer. Bad charter schools are a piece of the problem. But we've seen, in many historically underserved communities, charter schools being part of the answer, where students are getting great educations.

But as a country, our best schools are world class. We have a lot of schools in the middle. They're improving. What we have, though, is we have schools at the bottom where we're perpetuating poverty, we're perpetuating social failure. We have to stop doing that and we have to create options and opportunities for children and communities that have been underserved for far too long.

GREGORY: You want to pick up, though, on your opening thought.

GINGRICH: Yes. I -- I just want to give you one example that we all visited, because I think every American should understand there is no excuse for accepting failure. We visited the Mastery School in Philadelphia. The second most violent school in the city, 25th percentile in outcome. Three years ago the state became desperate, took over the school, turned it over to Mastery, which is a charter school system. Same building, same students.

Three years later, they're in the 86th percentile. And as one young man said to us, an 11th grader -- everyone in the 11th grade plans to go to college in this inner city, poor neighborhood. And one man said -- young man said to us, in the old school he fought because he was expected to. Now he doesn't fight, because it's not tolerated.

So there's no violence and real achievement. Every parent in the country should demand that their child be in a school of that caliber and that the change be now, not in five or 10 years.

GREGORY: Al Sharpton, why is this a vision you support?

SHARPTON: You know, I -- I was challenged by James Mtume, who's a music icon and talk show host, on why I and National Action Network, our group, was not dealing with education. It was a civil rights issue. When he showed me the data -- 55 percent of blacks get a diploma, 58 percent of Latinos, 78 percent of whites -- I looked at this achievement gap, which was almost identical to a 1954 when I was born, the year of Brown vs. Board of Education, and I said, "How are we ignoring this?"

Then, when I looked at the broader data, that we were -- in 1970, we were like 30 as a country, now we're 15 percent of the people in the world that is dealing with graduates. We are going backwards in a technological age as a country, and in my community we're getting inexperienced teachers, unequal education.

So if this means that we have to come together and make alliances to deal with the fact that almost half of the young people in my community are not even getting a high school diploma, I think the president is right.

Transcript: 'This Week' (11-15-09): Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani

Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani appeared on ABC's 'This Week' (11-15-09). Read the complete transcript. Excerpt below:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And as you're in Singapore, you and the President are facing really his toughest decision yet on Afghanistan. And on his way over when he stopped in Elmendorf Air Force Base, President Obama made this commitment to the troops and the country. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESTEPHANOPOULOS: We'll give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We'll give you the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home. That is a promise that I make to you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now that is a tough promise to keep. History shows that the public won't support a war for very long if they're not convinced that the goal is worthy. But also, and probably more important, that the war can be won. How can you convince the country that this war can be won?

CLINTON: Well I think the President said it very well in talking to some of the brave young men and women in uniform when he stopped at Elmendorf.

What he's been doing in the last weeks is testing every single assumption, asking for evidence, asking for dissenting opinions. I mean, he has conducted an extraordinary effort to make sure that the decision he makes is rooted in his best judgment as to what is in the national security interest of the United States. And I believe that's a case that can be made to the American people. I have no doubt about that. Now, look, I understand that there will be people who are maybe critical or unconvinced or not persuaded. But I think the majority of Americans will know that this president has gone the extra mile, in fact, more than that to make sure that whatever decision he makes is in the best interest of our country, that it is aimed at making our country more secure and supporting our men and women in uniform as they fulfill the mission.

U.N.: 1 Billion Worldwide Face Starvation

Think about it: One billion human beings face starvation. It is a sign of where this world is headed. It is the consequence of the global economic system that was touted as being so great for so long. It was never great for the vast majority of the world's population. But it was great for big business, and especially the financiers and Wall St.

The United Nations launched an online appeal for individual donations to fight hunger as donor nations tackle an economic crisis and, for the first time in history, more than 1 billion face starvation worldwide.

[...]The 1 billion number is about 100 million more than last year, the World Food Programme said. To meet the needs, the agency said it has to raise U.S. $6.7 billion. Donations to date stand at U.S. $2.9 billion.

Chinese Officials Told To Dump Mistresses

Maybe we ought to try this in the U.S.

in reference to:

"Chinese officials are being told to dump their mistresses, avoid hostess bars, and shun extravagances as part of the Communist party's efforts to clamp down on the corruption that is threatening its rule and sullying its reputation. The language of the new morality push, one of countless such campaigns informally under way, is surprisingly bold, often cutting through the bureaucratese to make a clear link between moral lassitude and corruption. One statistic trotted out at a recent speech to bureaucrats: 95 percent of officials investigated for corruption were found to be keeping mistresses. "It's just not possible to keep a mistress on your salary because maintaining this sort of extravagant lifestyle requires a large amount of cash money," Qi Peiwen, a party discipline enforcer, told officials in southern China."
- Chinese Officials Told To Dump Mistresses (view on Google Sidewiki)

SNL Spoof Video: Biden on Obama Indecisiveness (11-14-09)

This Saturday Night Live (SNL) video has VP Joe Biden lamenting his lack of access to President Obama and how he will be more decisive (on Afghanistan, Health care, the economy) while Barack is away and he takes over:

Lobbyists Ghost Write Health Care Speeches Given by Members of Congress

The lobbyists are so powerful in Washington that in some cases are writing the speeches given by the worthless whore members of Congress.

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

Transcript: The O'Reilly Factor (11-13-09)

Read a partial transcript for Bill O'Reilly's Factor (11-13-09). Excerpt below:

O'REILLY: You're missing the point. The lawyers for Mohammed are going to make the trial about the CIA and the Bush administration. Is that what you want?

SESTAK: Absolutely not. This is about justice. These men took down people. I was assigned to the Pentagon when it happened. I -- as you well know, when after them in Afghanistan headed Deep Blue, the Navy's anti- terrorism unit. But what I also defended was the ideals of this nation. Our court systems are strong enough.

O'REILLY: So you don't believe in military tribunals?

SESTAK: That is a show piece down in Gitmo.

O'REILLY: You don't believe in military tribunals?

SESTAK: In Gitmo right now, we're creating more terrorists outside the walls than we can keep in...

O'REILLY: In general as a military man, and the congressman was a naval officer, you don't believe in military tribunals?

SESTAK: Me? Oh, absolutely.

O'REILLY: Okay, so I think this is the perfect class..

SESTAK: I think they're appropriate at the time and place for what the Supreme Court said twice.

O'REILLY: All right, so this is the classic case that they should be using.

SESTAK: (INAUDIBLE) that they have been constructed did not give them the proper evidentiary rules that a civilized nation would provide a person.

O'REILLY: All right, now.

SESTAK: So then they've redone them. We just redid it in the NDAA, the Defense Authorization bill to try to make them better.

O'REILLY: I still think, look.

SESTAK: But as we've done hundreds.

O'REILLY: .if you look at the history of military tribunals.

SESTAK: .let's bring them home and put them right away in jail.

O'REILLY: If you look at the history of military trials from Nuremberg to Bosnia to 9/11, this fits. Now you're a New York guy. You're the New York congressman.

WEINER: Yeah.

O'REILLY: You know the suffering of the 9/11 families.

WEINER: Yeah.

O'REILLY: You can't possibly think the 9/11 families want this?

WEINER: Well, some of them do.

O'REILLY: No.

WEINER: Some of them may want.

O'REILLY: It's 9 to 1, 10 to 1.

WEINER: Some of them may want a chance to have their moment in court as well. Some -- I'm not exactly sure I understand what the concern is here. If the concern is that this guy's not going to get put to death, I don't think you have to worry about that. We have the best prosecutors in the world that are going to be on this case. I trust that we'll be able to keep this city safe. We have the best police officers in the world. What is the concern ? Is the concern now after eight years finally we're doing what the Bush administration.

O'REILLY: The concern is it's a circus and that it helps al Qaeda recruiting.

WEINER: You're going to have a trial.

O'REILLY: Look.

WEINER: Trials are sometimes not, are sometimes not tidy, but the outcome is what I care about it. And I want this guy put to death. Or even better yet.

O'REILLY: Well, I don't believe in the death penalty.

WEINER: .maybe the best thing should be that this guy gets acquitted and comes to Brooklyn and then get his comeuppance there.

O'REILLY: Okay, but then.

WEINER: But I want this.

O'REILLY: .we'd have to prosecute you.

WEINER: I want this.

O'REILLY: Hold it. Just listen. Rove had a good point where Karl Rove said look, every circus element of the trial, and there will be, and you congressmen both know there will be that, will be front page news in Arabic newspapers all over the world. Those people over there aren't going to get the subtleties of our system. What they're going to hear is the propaganda, Congressman Weiner.

WEINER: No, the entire.

O'REILLY: No, what do you mean no? Of course.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINER: This entire trial.

O'REILLY: Yeah.

WEINER: .is going to show how the United States, with all of our values, how we mete out justice.

Transcript: Rachel Maddow Show (11-13-09)

Here's the complete transcript for the Rachel Maddow Show(11-13-09). Excerpt below:

That was President Bush two weeks after September 11th, promising to capture and bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Well, now, more than eight years after that promise was made, we still haven`t caught Osama bin Laden. But among others with some alleged responsible for 9/11, finally, we learn today that while justice has been delayed, it will not forever be denied.

The Bush administration which talked so tough about getting justice for the perpetrators of 9/11 ultimately left office without doing that. It has been left to the next administration, the incoming Obama administration, to make good on the promises of justice that are nearly decade old.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice will pursue prosecution in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York -- to New York -- to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Attorney General Eric Holder today announcing that alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspects will be transferred from Guantanamo to a New York City federal courthouse, to finally face trial. Today`s announcement means their trials will take place, as he said, just short walk from "Ground Zero" in Lower Manhattan. The attorney general says prosecutors will seek the death penalty for all five defendants, if they are found guilty.

In addition to the 9/11 defendants, the Justice Department also announced today that five additional terrorism suspects will not get a day in court. They will instead face military commissions for their alleged role in the bombing of the USS Cole in the year 2000 and other attacks on U.S. military personnel.

These are big developments that have been a very long time coming. And in a move as about as anticipated as the sun rising tomorrow morning, the Republican Party says it is outraged. Not over the military commissions decision, but over the fact that the 9/11 defendants will finally be facing justice in real courts.

Senator Jeff Sessions said, quote, "Our court system was never designed for this purpose. These trials will turn lawyers, juries and judges into targets."

Senator Jon Kyl said, "Past trials of terrorists have proven that our civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to handle international terrorism trials."

Senator John McCain blasting the decision tonight during a news conference in Arizona.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I do not understand why a war criminal should be able to have the same rights as a common criminal. And they should reverse this decision and they should be tried in military tribunals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: And then there`s the former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: In a criminal trial, the rights of terrorists are more important than anything else. I mean, we -- here -- our criminal justice system is geared to let guilty people go free, if there is any doubt. We think they`re criminals. These are soldiers in a war against us. And the rules of war should apply.

FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts

Lies just keep coming. I don't think Republicans (and lots of Democrats) nowadays don't know what the truth is.

in reference to:

"PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking ''only'' for reasonably priced rooms and not ''often'' going for the ''high-end, robe-and-slippers'' hotels.THE FACTS: Although travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) overlooking New York City's Central Park for a five-hour women's leadership conference in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000. Event organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter. The governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children's travel, including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on official business.------PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife and $30 from a state representative in the weeks after the two Republican lawmakers' offices were raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield services company. After AP reported those donations during the presidential campaign, she gave a comparative sum to charity."
- FACT CHECK - Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Transcript: Obama Tokyo Press Conference (11-13-09)

President Obama held a press conference in Tokyo along with the Japanese PM, HATOYAMA. Complete transcript. Excerpt below:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I am impressed that the Japanese journalists use the same strategy as American journalists -- (laughter) -- in asking multiple questions.

Let me, first of all, insist that the United States and Japan are equal partners. We have been and we will continue to be. Each country brings specific assets and strengths to the relationship, but we proceed based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and that will continue.

That's reflected in the Japan-U.S. alliance. It will be reflected in the resolution of the base realignment issues related to Futenma. As the Prime Minister indicated, we discussed this. The United States and Japan have set up a high-level working group that will focus on implementation of the agreement that our two governments reached with respect to the restructuring of U.S. forces in Okinawa, and we hope to complete this work expeditiously.

Our goal remains the same, and that's to provide for the defense of Japan with minimal intrusion on the lives of the people who share this space. And I have to say that I am extraordinarily proud and grateful for the men and women in uniform from the United States who help us to honor our obligations to the alliance and our treaties.

With respect to nuclear weapons and the issues of non-proliferation, this is an area where Prime Minister Hatoyama and I have discussed repeatedly in our meetings. We share, I think, a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. We recognize, though, that this is a distant goal, and we have to take specific steps in the interim to meet this goal. It will take time. It will not be reached probably even in our own lifetimes. But in seeking this goal we can stop the spread of nuclear weapons; we can secure loose nuclear weapons; we can strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will retain our deterrent for our people and our allies, but we are already taking steps to bring down our nuclear stockpiles and -- in cooperation with the Russian government -- and we want to continue to work on the non-proliferation issues.

Now, obviously Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that I'm sure helps to motivate the Prime Minister's deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don't have immediate travel plans, but it's something that would be meaningful to me.

You had one more question, and I'm not sure I remember it. Was it North Korea?

'Countdown' Transcript (11-12-09)

Read the complete transcript of 'Countdown' with Keith Olbermann (11-12-09). Excerpt below:

OLBERMANN: We know about this Harvard University study, details of which have come out in two doses: 44,000 Americans die each year for want of insurance. Now, we know that 2,266 veterans die each year for lack of insurance. You have a better chance surviving kidney disease than you do lack of insurance in this country. Why has this so seldom seen couched, presented in the moral imperative terms the same way that the abortion debate is?

GADDY: Keith, it is by some of us seen very much by a moral perspective, but your very question highlights the problem that we`re facing right now, and that is that some people in the religious community understand morality one way and some people understand it another. That`s why the United States Congress is commissioned not to legislate sectarian morality but to legislate policies that are good for the whole nation.

The real question in any debate in Congress ought not be what do the scriptures say, but what does the Constitution say. Not what does it mean to be a good Christian, Jew or Muslim, but what does it mean to be a good American.

OLBERMANN: In relation to Congressman Stupak`s amendment, specifically. The Catholic bishops now say they can`t support any health care plan that includes a provision for abortion. Again, the alternative to that is: no provision, no plan, and another 44,000 Americans dying in the next year because of insufficient insurance and another 44,000 after that.

How does that make sense in terms of, to use a phrase, "right to life"?

GADDY: Well, I understand that every religious tradition ought to have a right to advocate for its moral perspective. But once you jump into the political arena, you have to play politics like everyone else plays. Obviously, the Catholic bishops are deciding to play hard ball politics. Now, they also have a responsibility to take the reciprocal action that comes from that.

And there are other people in this nation who understand pro-life to go beyond the life of a fetus, and include the life of an adult. And this legislation is -- by the broadest definition -- pro-life legislation. It varies from that only in one or two traditions that maximize this issue of abortion as the moral issue that trumps all other moral issues.

OLBERMANN: The Catholic archdiocese of Washington also says it`s not going to be able to continue its social service programs it runs for the district. That means no help with homelessness, with adoption, with health care clinics if the city is not going to change its proposed same-sex marriage law. How does -- explain -- help me understand how that makes sense.

GADDY: I can`t help you understand how that makes sense. Compassion is compassion. And compassion does not take all of its goods and run away when it doesn`t get its way in a political decision that represents the will of the nation.

The Catholic Church is doing the right thing in advocating for its point of view. The Catholic Church is a good citizen of this nation as are other good citizens in the religious community and beyond. And if they lose on this point, that shouldn`t trump their commitment to showing compassion in any community.

OLBERMANN: Lastly, a taste allegory religious question. The Michael Moore film, "Capitalism: A Love Story." He`s got Jesus refusing to heal a sick man because the sick man has a preexisting condition. Is that in good taste? Is it in bad taste? Do you think it makes a religious or moral point?

GADDY: Well, I hope that anybody in the religious community, as well as outside, has a sense of humor. Lord knows we need it these days.

OLBERMANN: Yes.

GADDY: It does make a point. It makes a point that within the Christian tradition, healing is a priority and efforts to establish healing are in the best interest of all people.

S.C. GOP castigates Lindsey Graham

It shows how intolerant the Republicans have become. Bipartisanship is now taboo within the GOP.

in reference to:

"GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham’s decision to work with Senate Democratic leaders on cap-and-trade legislation has sparked a mutiny back home, culminating in an scathing rebuke from the Republican Party in one of the most populous counties in the South Carolina. In a harshly-worded resolution approved Monday, the Charleston County Republican Party condemned Graham for undermining “Republican leadership and party solidarity for his own benefit” and tarnishing “the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.” The resolution recited a litany of grievances against Graham beyond his position on climate change legislation. “Graham has shown a condescending attitude toward his constituents by calling them ‘bigots’ when they opposed his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens,” read one portion of the resolution."
- S.C. GOP castigates Lindsey Graham - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Source: 9/11 Mastermind to NYC for Trial

This could be security issue. It is also going to be a circus. I'm not sure I understand why he couldn't be tried under a military court.

in reference to:

"An Obama administration official says accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court. The official tells The Associated Press that Attorney General Eric Holder is scheduled to announce the decision later Friday morning. The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so is speaking on condition of anonymity."
- Source: 9/11 Mastermind to NYC for Trial - CBS News (view on Google Sidewiki)