Why is it that the FBI/CIA/State Department and the majority of our Judges do not care about Americans security or Americans continued existance.

If immigrants walk freely in our own country after treason and breaking the laws, then why should U.S. citizens have to adhere to our own laws.

Our laws are keeping responsible citizens in a box, while lawbreakers are being able to skirt our rights and when caught get a slap on the wrist and allowed to walk free. Why adhere?

Posted by: alaskan1000 at May 13, 2008 6:34 PM

Other than the sentence, how does this stack up with the Rosenberg case?

Oh my, how our priorities of self defense have changed.

Posted by: walterc at May 13, 2008 6:34 PM

Other than the sentence, how does this stack up with the Rosenberg case?

Oh my, how our priorities of self defense have changed.

Posted by: walterc at May 13, 2008 6:35 PM

Without going on and on about how bad it is in the war. We have the undercutting of our own law by judicial nullification.

The battle is unfortunately on many fronts.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at May 13, 2008 7:01 PM

Collective insanity in the judiciary.

I'm speechless...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 13, 2008 7:23 PM

Jihadist-related cases should be tried by military courts, not in civilian settings. Just another example of the collapse into pandering and confusion of the War on Terror - whatever that is.
To further illustrate how far things have fallen: President Bush reiterated his confidence in Abbas as a suitable peace partner. Now read this jpost.com article on how Fatah still executes as collaborators anyone who fulfills the Road Map requirement of the PA actually opposing terrorism ("Free Imad Sa'ad"):
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668626940&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: jewdog at May 13, 2008 7:36 PM

From Debbie Schlussel's post:

Cohn also said that Prouty served with distinction in terrorism investigations in Iraq and elsewhere. But, big whoop. Prouty was working on behalf of Shi'ite Hezbollah. The investigations she was involved with were going after Sunni terrorists. This is a Hezbollah/Shi'ite goal, not something for which she was brave or merits plaudits.

U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn, the FBI, CIA, DHS, all Government officials up to and including the President of the United States have thus far ignored the historic context of this enemy - to our detriment. This willful ignorance is maddening and suicidal.

Fitzgerald: Sunnis, Shi'a, Kurds, and Infidels

Posted by: justamomof4 at May 13, 2008 8:41 PM

.........

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at May 13, 2008 9:07 PM

It could be that Madam Notbright would prefer not getting hit with any Mud. Considering she is standing pretty close to the line of fire.

"blasted Media coverage"- "distorted the circumstances" Now there is a surprise!

Personally, I can only sympathize with lying to get out of Hell. The same goes with wanting to work against it. Did she really "spy" in the true sense of the word or was she discovering for her self the family's involvement. One that would jeopardize her standing as it obviously has.

I have more concern for what the FBI-CIA are doing about the rest of the family.

It is not like the matter should not be looked at deeper. Seeds in feirtle ground sprout roots, many unseen by the nacid eye

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 13, 2008 9:37 PM

Cohn said Prouty, who lives in suburban Washington, served the United States with distinction in Iraq and elsewhere, at times placing herself in peril on behalf of her adopted country.

Hey, Cohn, Timothy McVeigh akso "served the United States with distinction in Iraq."

Posted by: Pelayo at May 13, 2008 10:01 PM

It's already been mentioned, regarding the attitudes of the FBI, CIA, etc., but the problem goes all the way to both houses of congress, and even the White House. With judges like the one in this trial, we only exacerbate a very serious problem. To fight a war, you must fight to win. Unfortunately, too many of our politicians have preferred to be politically correct, to all our peril. We are in big trouble!

Posted by: nav8tor at May 13, 2008 10:04 PM

I don't know if this approach/strategy to winning World war II was written down anywhere, but I believe that the USA and its elected representative government viewed all citizens of Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan as the enemy - not just those individuals wearing the uniform. We destroyed cathedrals where many of our own citizens could have attended Mass. etc etc

So what happened?

Posted by: HOV Dummy at May 13, 2008 10:10 PM

Pelayo,
Good one. A few more along the same line:

Judas Iscariot
Benedict Arnold
Ignacio Ramos
Jose Compean

Every single one of the above individuals "placed himself in peril". The first two had honorable records prior to their own acts of betrayal. Benedict Arnold's status as a war hero isn't why he is still known today.

Ramos and Compean both had records of distinguished service and they weren't saved from prison.

Cohn sounds like an illegal alien sympathizer who is looking for any reason he can find to prevent the law from being enforced, rather than set a precedent that might affect many other illegals who aren't terrorists.

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 10:26 PM

At least they could have sent her to Yemen for some "prison time" (meaning: three weeks under moderate detention, then she "escapes", to the amazment of the Yemeni police).

If only to keep up appearances for the inattentive MSM.

This judge should be smacked in the face with a single wet noodle.

As a commentary on his spine.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 13, 2008 11:53 PM

She's a Shia, and "served with distinction in Iraq" means that as a Shi'a, she was delighted to see the American army getting rid of Saddam Hussein's Sunni despotism, and replacing it with a Shi'a despotism. That is a very different thing from owing her loyalty to the American government. Her loyalty is to her deen, and to her sect. And everything else about her, save for the fact that at one point her interest in promoting the Shi'a, and the
American government's misguided and foolish but stated interest in "bringing freedom" "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq meant, of course, transferring opwer to the Shi'a becuase they constitute 65% of Iraq's population, from her being an illegal alien, to repeatedly lying to government officials about her background, to her attempting to monitor what the government might have known about her Hezbollah-related relatives -- all that show that the judge in the case did not understand a thing about the meaning, or menace, of Islam.

And this is not the first, nor will it be the last, farcical trial. The need for judges to be instructed in the nature of Islam, of its texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics, to understand the loyalties -- to Islam, then to the sect, then to the tribe, then to the family, without any loyalty conceivably being given to the Infidel nation-state or to its legal and political institutions -- is a concept that is hard for ordinary people (and judges are perfectly ordinary people), with conventional ideas that they have picked up, about...oh, about how we all want the same thing, and if someone works for the army in Iraq that someone must be a good, loyal, wrongly-suspected American, and so on -- well, that kind of naive and dangerous mindset just has to go.

And the whole thing is and will remain a farce, using ordinary courts, with their ordinary juries and ordinary judges, when what is needed is special courts, with judges trained in the relevant matters (and the most relevant matter is Islam), who can dispense justice in a way that makes sense, adequate to the high task at hand. Such courts exist wherever specialized knowledge is required -- Tax Courts, Patent Courts. There should be such courts for cases of Muslim terrorism. This is a difficult and unpleasant problem, for it raises the matter of having to learn about Islam. But it has to be discussed, in detail, rationally. We cannot all be put permanently at risk because everyone is afraid of offending either Muslims, or the kind of people who, though non-Muslim, are "offended" by discussions about something which, of course, they really know nothing about, but have their attitudes, and their attitudinizing, to keep them warmth.

We are not obligated to worry about their delicate sensibiliites. Bombs in the street, Saudi-financed mosques rising on every street corner - that's what we have to worry about.

Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2008 8:52 AM

The further question is, from what bank of moral relativeness did we get U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn?

Posted by: Shawmut at May 14, 2008 2:53 PM