TPM LiveWire

Stewart Takes Down KSM Trial Fearmongerers

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

On the Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart took GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Louie Gohmert to task for describing "nightmare scenarios" on the House floor that could happen at the upcoming trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

"You're in a windowless room plotting terrorist acts while America sleeps. You're what you're warning about!" Stewart said.

Watch:







The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Things Not to Be Thankful For - Silverdome, Goldman Sachs & Congressional Recess
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Comments (31) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

November 20, 2009 10:29 AM   

Great that we've finally arrived at the point of calling the Republican Party terrorists what they are:

Terrorists: those who deliberately terrorize the US electorate for political gain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 10:36 AM   

Stewart exposes the shift in political power that has been visited on our society; that moved politics from helping US achieve our dreams to protecting US from an illusive enemy.

Here is a clear explanation, I hope you find it as eye opening as I did.

http://personalgrowthcourses.net/video/power_of_nightmares_bbc

Best

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 10:43 AM   

A great new term I heard: Republicans are "the Fearmonger Caucus".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 11:06 AM   

Pretty certain these are points that should be made by someone who is not a comedian.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 11:44 AM    in reply to Chris

Pretty certain these are points that should be made...period.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 12:26 PM    in reply to Chris

"Pretty certain these are points that should be made by someone who is not a comedian."

Well, two problems there -- a) Since 100% of the population of the world are comedians, who would that leave?, and b) Do you think people check their rights as citizens at the door as soon as they start telling jokes? Because if so, why should we listen to you after this stinker?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 12:39 PM    in reply to hbobrien

Um, I think the point is, no one in our fair and balanced media is saying any of this stuff, other than a late-night comedian. That is a problem. We shouldn't have to rely on Jon Stewart to point out the idiocy of members of congress, and we wouldn't have to, if "journalists" actually did journalism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 11:27 AM   

"Boom! Crocodiles!
The terrorists win!"

That's just great phraseology.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 12:34 PM   

Death snack ftw!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 12:36 PM   

How did Louie "Gomer" Gohmert ever get elected to any kind of office? I know, I know, Michelle Bachmann, etc., etc., but jeez, talk about a self-inflicted wound. Don't Texans have any sense of shame? Whoever runs against him in 2010 needs to replay that clip of him over and over and over again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 1:43 PM    in reply to commie atheist

How did Louie "Gomer" Gohmert ever get elected to any kind of office?

It's simple:

The people who elected him, i.e. the majority of voters in his district, are as stupid as, or stupider than, he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 2:52 PM    in reply to commie atheist

I would lay a good deal of blame on the poor funding of public education, vanishing civics education, and a lack of a serious media. Also, falling wages have forced people to work more and more, leaving less time to learn about politics.

Politics is after all "the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them"

You have the Maureen Dowds and everybody talking about earth tones and Al Gore's bald spot, Arianna Huffington about 4 button suits, Chris Matthews idolizing W's package, etc when you do try to learn about what is going on in the popular corporate media outlets.

In case you haven't been outside lately, or left a college campus, people in this country aren't exactly STUPID, but they are surely IGNORANT. Just think about a person with average intelligence, an IQ of 100 - for college hopefulls: an SAT of 1000 for old, 1500 for new 3 part, and an ACT of 20. That ain't so hot, and half of all people are less intelligent than that.

Thanks to Ted Kennedy's and George W Bush's NCLB stupidity, our public schools are crappier than ever before.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 3:28 PM    in reply to Captain Obvious

All good points, but every time I see Gohmert speak, and listen to the crap that comes out of his mouth, I just can't believe that people actually went into a voting booth and said to themselves, "That there Louie Gohmert is one smart feller. I think I'll vote for him." Unless, of course, as mjshep says, they're as stupid or stupider than he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 7:55 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Look, the guy is from East Texas somewhere. Those people have been inbreeding since before the War of Northern Aggression, and the results are obvious. The East Texans I've met got married right after they reached puberty, and if you want to see traditional American life, forget the Wildfire books. Go to East Texas.

What's the difference between a coonass and a horses' ass? The Sabine River.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 6:30 PM   

Well, These congressmen aren't exactly bathing themselves in glory. They don't appear particularly bright, and certainly lack eloquence. Easy targets for a comedian. However, I haven't heard anyone here address the underlying point (as poorly made as it is). Why are KSM and the others being granted the same legal standing as a U.S. citizen? This is a new thing, so try to avoid using the "rule of law" arguement. The law never has before.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 7:51 PM    in reply to aliesterrand

I've heard a few theories being tossed around about this. In no particular order:

A) Treating him like "just a US citizen" somehow humanizes him and makes him less scary.
B) It's easier or cheaper.
C) It's a show of how compassionate we are to the rest of the world.

I don't buy any of those myself...I really don't have a theory, to be honest. I'm just as confused as you are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 8:27 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

didn't the crime occur on us soil?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 9:01 PM    in reply to storm

Was it a crime or an act of war? it's not just semantics to ask this question, but it seems to be the crux of the difference in philosophies. Both models have their drawbacks as the last twenty years have show. Clinton did little to slow the growth of Al- Qaeda during his terms and Bush got us embroiled in two basically open-ended wars. Obama seems to favor the law enforcement approach, but has extensively used the predator drones to attack suspected AQ hideouts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 11:41 PM    in reply to storm

Does that automatically give him all the rights us citizens get, though? That doesn't make much sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 2:48 AM    in reply to aliesterrand

Why are KSM and the others being granted the same legal standing as a U.S. citizen? This is a new thing, so try to avoid using the "rule of law" arguement. The law never has before.

It's not a new thing at all, fool. The "rule of law" argument is perfectly valid, and the law has functioned just fine before, thank you very much. Google Zacarias Moussaoui sometime. Hint: 20th hijacker. French (i.e. non-US) citizen. Tried in federal court, Eastern District of Virginia. Now serving sentence of life without parole at Federal ADX Supermax prison in Florence, CO. Federal prisoner number 51427-054.

The cons seem to forget all about this guy, and dozens of others (non-US citizens), tried and convicted in federal court, with all due process protections, now locked up in federal supermax facilities. Apparently, so did you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 10:17 PM   

Stewart and his team continue to out-do themselves. Brilliant!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 10:37 PM   

alie, define an "act of war"?
The same people who stood behind Bush when he refused to identify Al Qaede terrorists as POW's, instead using the shameful aphorism "enemy combatant", are now calling for military tribunals because these guys are, wait for it, prisoners of war!
No matter how heinous a crime someone is accused of, it's unlawful to detain them indefinitely without a trial. When we start doing that (and we have), we are no different than a third world dictatorship.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 11:10 PM    in reply to PaulieGooner

I do not have a ready definition of an act of war. However, as to your second point, you propose two alternatives. They do not meet the criteria of a legal combatant under the Geneva convention since they don't wear uniforms or fight for a sovereign nation. I personally don't believe they should be extended the extensive legal rights of an American citizen. However, I agree that leaving them in a legal black hole is unacceptable. Congress should create a category for them including legal guidlines for their treatment. Congress is unfortunately filled with gutless coward who, nonetheless understand that this would be a no-win situation since neither the right nor left would be pleased with any solution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 21, 2009 10:41 AM   

If you treat KSM and his ilk as common criminals, as just a bunch of murderous thugs, you allow the world to treat them with the contempt they deserve.

The neo-morons in the Bu**sh** administration gave these guys status as "enemies" and "combatants," and the residual fear mongering retards of the repugnicant party are trying to scare us into thinking they are some sort of supermen whose trials will allow them to subvert our country.

KSM and the rest of the 9/11 plotters are scum, pure and simple; they need to be treated as such. We handle scum all the time in our legal system. Let's lock them away where they belong. Personally, I can't think of a better fate for these pricks than to throw them into the general population of a maximum security prison. It'd be interesting to see which of the gangs does them first.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 22, 2009 6:21 PM    in reply to RocketEngineer

But aren't the rules of evidence more strict in a criminal trial. And aren't the rules of discovery broader? Aren't military personnel going to then be held to the same evidential standards as police officers? Won't this give them a presumption of innocence? Maybe there was a a reason the Bush administration did it this way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 23, 2009 2:57 AM    in reply to aliesterrand

You fail to provide any reason why such legal standards shouldn't apply. And there's no reason why they shouldn't. Contrary to your ignorant misreading of history, even the Bush admin did just fine trying terrorists in federal court. As did the Clinton admin before it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 12, 2010 2:39 AM   

Was it a crime or an act of war? it's not just semantics to ask this question, but it seems to be the crux of the difference in philosophies. Both models have their drawbacks as the last twenty years have show. Clinton did little to slow the growth of Al- Qaeda during his terms and Bush got us embroiled in two basically open-ended wars. Obama seems to favor the law enforcement approach, but has extensively used the predator drones to attack suspected AQ hideouts.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on