On this day in 1789, the first Congress passed the Bill of Rights—12 amendments to the Constitution designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens.

Only the last 10 of the original 12 were ratified by the states, including the First Amendment, which includes freedom of religion, speech, the press, and public assembly.

In case you've forgotten what they are ....

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

After all, it is your right to know these rights ...

Why rehash the mutilation/murder of three American soldiers that occurred over three months ago? 

Because terrorists released an updated video of their brutalized corpses again Saturday -- reminding us again that these deaths were in retaliation for the rape-murder of an Iraqi girl and her family.

Few believe this explanation, of course.  It's simply not the nature of Islamo-fanatics to avenge or protect women ....

The video also re-emphasizes the harsh reality that terrorists (in stark contradiction with our Supreme Court, which voted 5-3 that Geneva Convention protections must be extended to captured  terrorists) have absolutely no respect for these Conventions or the detainees they supposedly protect. 

A time-line surrounding these mutilation-murders still doesn't  quite qualify -- culturally or morally -- as "justifiable" revenge (if such a concept has credence -- but I'll leave that debate to others) for the rape and murder of an Iraqi family on March 12, 2006.

Of course, that's only my opinion. 

And since the revengers identified themselves as an umbrella organization of terrorists called The Mujahideen Shura Council -- consisting of at least eight Iraqi insurgency groups (al-Qaeda, the Victorious Army Group, the Army of al-Sunnah Wal Jama'a, Jama'a al-Murabiteen, Ansar al-Tawhid Brigades, Islamic Jihad Brigades, the Strangers Brigades and the Horrors Brigades) -- I concede that their virtual impact is much greater than my humble opinion.

Regardless --

Point 1:  Islamic law is not reputed to protect or seek revenge on behalf of rape victims in particular or women in general.  Rather, rape victims are more likely victimized by "honor" killings to protect the "integrity" of the victim's family.

Point 2:  The alleged rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and the murder of her family occurred on March 12, 2006.

Point 3:  Initially authorities assumed they were killed by local insurgents.

Point 4:  Three American soldiers were attacked and kidnapped (one body was left at the check-point) on June 16.  Subsequent statements made by the terrorists claiming to have kidnapped the Americans made no reference to the March 12 rape/murder case -- which had not yet been revealed. 

Point 5:  Information on the rape and a criminal investigation were announced by the Military Command on June 30, following a witness "confession" on June 22 which implicated possibly six American soldiers in this alleged crime.

Point 6:  The first video of two soldiers' mutilated bodies "in honor of the young girl raped" was released by terrorists on July 10.

Point 7:  A second "re-edited" video was released by terrorists on September 23.

What does this time-line indicate -- if anything? 

It indicates that six American soldiers are now charged and/or implicated in the rape and murder of a young Iraqi girl and her family.  It indicates that regardless of the situation or location  -- justice will prevail.  Except, of course, in the case of the brutal murder of three American soldiers.

This post will be the first of several I pledge to write to review as objectively as possible (within the given context of biased MSM coverage and senatorial grandstanding):

1) the circumstances under which two (actually three) American soldiers were kidnapped, savagely mutilated and murdered in Iraq on June 16, 2006 -- allegedly in retaliation for the rape/murder of Iraqi citizens in March 2006; and,

2) decision(s) by Senators McCain, Graham, et al (on both sides of the aisle) and the U.S. Supreme Court to expand and expound the rights of combatant-terrorist detainees, pursuant to the Geneva Accords, and especially Section 3 of those Accords.

I will post graphic images, videos, reports and witness testimonies -- as available.  If you're offended --- don't look or read.

My premise in this review:  The Supreme Court, designated Congress members and the MSM have rendered our systems of justice and self-defense legally and unilaterally paralyzed against those who wish to destroy us -- who have absolutely no regard or respect for the Geneva Accords. 

I pray that my premise is wrong.

FROM Breitbart.com:  (September 23, 2006) 

An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web video Saturday purporting to show the bodies of two American soldiers being dragged behind a truck, then set on fire in apparent retaliation for the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by U.S. troops from the same unit.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council _ an umbrella organization of insurgent groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq _ posted another video in June showing the soldiers' mutilated bodies, and claiming it killed them. It was not clear whether the video posted Saturday was a continuation of that footage, or why it was released.

It was impossible to identify the bodies, but the footage was believed to be of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Pfc. Thomas Tucker, 25, who went missing after being attacked by insurgents on June 16 at a checkpoint south of Baghdad. Their remains were found three days later, and the U.S. military said they had been mutilated.

The video showed masked men dragging the corpses, first by hand, then behind a truck, beheading one of them and then setting them on fire. Below the graphic footage is a subtitle: "The two soldiers belong to the same brigade of the soldier who raped our sister in Mahmoudiya."

The U.S military has charged four soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division _ Spc. James P. Barker, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard _ in the March 12 alleged rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe is accused of failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.

A fifth suspect, Pfc. Steven D. Green, was discharged from the army because of a "personality disorder" before the allegations became known. He has pleaded not guilty to rape and murder charges and is being held in a civilian court in the United States.

Mahmoudiya is an extremely violent region in Iraq in an area known as the "triangle of death" for the numerous attacks by insurgents.

The two slain soldiers also were from the 101st Airborne Division.

In the next related post, I'll try to identify time-lines for referenced incidents and the sequence of Judicial/Congressional/Executive actions on combatant detainee rights. 

Why? 

Because I want to know who began this current circus of events that holds the US accountable for the humane treatment of terrorist detainees  -- while the unbridled massacre and mutilation of American captives is deemed "acceptable" or at worst, "expected."

 Scrappleface has the scoop -- errrrrr .... the inside info on the latest Osaami-Been-Laid2rest rumors. 

And then some.

  Jeeeze, Louise.  How many times is this human-slug gonna die? 

I had in mind a "thousand deaths" for him -- but I didn't want the bugger to kick the bucket and miss all the pain.

The French are reporting his death this time.  Nevermind.

  Move the United Nations?

No -- move the members and wanna-be's.   Lebanon would a good place.   Room service might not be as good, but ....

We'll keep the name and the building in NY, thank you. 

Nations who want to remain "united" may remain under a renewed charter, of course.  Those who want to continue to re-write their own version of "unity" are welcome to leave.

Let dictators and vengeful 3rd world nations who want to bite the hands that feed them have their own arena.   Their new "unity" could be renamed the International Non-Aligned Nations Enclave. 

I.N.A.N.E. for short. 

First require all current U. N. delegates to pay their bills and turn in their visas.  They must re-apply for membership.  Terrorist-sponsoring nations need not apply.

Load all their personal possessions on an empty 9-11 debris barge and send them to Venezuela or Tehran or Lebanon or wherever they want to go. 

Offer to foot the bill.  (It will be less expensive than refurbishing the current U. N. building.)

Re-issue invitations to nations who actually WANT to be united in effecting change and freedom and peace, etc.  Require that renewed-members pay applicable dues before admission.  REPEAT:  Terrorist-sponsoring nations need not apply.

Oh yeah.  Save Kofi Annan a seat on that barge.

And be certain that before leaving the Harbor --  ever damn barge circles the Statue of Liberty.   At night. 

And turn on the WTC memorial lights.

  Update:  Guess who supposedly left the U.S. in the dark of night????  Last night, even. 

Seems the "good will" tour Chavez had planned in Harlem was canceled when Joe Kennedy et al suddenly developed "family obligations." 

Too bad.  

A few thousand REAL Americans were planning to greet el presidente Chavez in the streets of NY .....  

Update #2433718:  Huey didn't leave after all.  His bro' Danny Glover took him to a church down in Charlie's district.  Then he left town.  Thank God.

A Venezuelan parrot named Pedro (pictured below) and his life-like mannequin "Hugo" won a United Nations comedy award this afternoon, though playing to a sparse house. 

Observers were amazed that the parrot's beak hardly moved during a 22-minute ventriloquist routine.

Pedro the Parrot and his dummy Hugo
react to the attention given
to a man in a green helmet with cue cards.

Although prepared to grease judges with free oil, Pedro and his dummy "Hugo" actually had no competition after Kofi Annan fell off his pony in front of the podium. 

Observers were frequently distracted by a man in a green helmet who tittered about with laugh-cards in 28 non-aligned languages.  

 Cue the man in the green helmet. 

He'll be whisking around the Middle East, orchestrating photo ops for Friday's  Islamic "Day of Rage." 

To be done with civility and dignity, we're told.

That'll be a first:  dignified and civil rage. 

Please don't delay our disappointment.

  http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Thomas Sowell on

Suicidal hand-wringing

When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing. But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.

The issue has been brought to a head by the efforts of Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham to get us to apply the rules of the Geneva convention to cutthroats who respect no Geneva convention and are not covered by the Geneva convention.

If this was just a case of a handful of headstrong senators, who want us to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while we are being kicked in the groin and slashed with knives, that would be bad enough. But the issue of applying the Geneva convention to people who were never covered by the Geneva convention originated in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, and Congress has specifically taken away the jurisdiction of the courts in cases involving the detention of illegal combatants, such as terrorists, who are not — repeat, not — prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention.

The Supreme Court ignored that law. Apparently everyone must obey the law except judges. Congress has the power to impeach judges, including Supreme Court justices, but apparently not the guts. Runaway judges are not going to stop until they get stopped.

In short, the clash between Senator McCain, et al., and the President of the United States is more than just another political clash. It is part of a far more general, and ultimately suicidal, confusion and hand-wringing in the face of mortal dangers.

The argument is made that we must respect the Geneva convention because, otherwise, our own soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment when they become prisoners of war.

Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?

No one has suggested that we disregard the Geneva convention for people covered by the Geneva convention. The question is whether a lawless court shall seize the power to commit this nation to rules never agreed to by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the power to make international treaties.

The much larger question — the question of survival — is whether we have the clarity and the courage to go all-out in self-defense against those who are going all-out to destroy us, even at the cost of their own lives.

There are too many signs that we do not and those signs are visible not only in our political and judicial institutions but throughout American society and western civilization.

Sheltered for years from terrorist dangers that we so much feared after the September 11th attacks, many have come to act as if those dangers do not exist and that we now have the luxury of dismantling the means by which they have been held at bay this long.

In a country where all sorts of individuals and organizations tap into our personal computers and our computerized medical, financial and other records, some have gone ballistic over the fact that the federal government tries to keep track of who is being phoned by international terrorist organizations.

No amount of security precautions can protect us from all the thousands of ways in which terrorists can strike at times and places of their own choosing — and eventually strike with nuclear weapons. Our only hope is to get advance information from those we capture as to where other terrorists are and how they operate.

Squeamishness about how this is done is not a sign of higher morality but of irresponsibility in the face of mortal dangers.

A must-read from The Anchoress ....

Any intelligent human being understands that one does not - in the 21st century - publicly touch on the subject of Islamic jihad and religious compulsion, no matter how delicately or distinctively, unless one wants to deal with a reaction that is both primitive and intimidating, by a group demonstrably closed to dialogue.

And yet Benedict, clearly an intelligent man, has done so. He has, in essence, dared to say to Islam, “Is this really what you want to be doing, in this century? The rest of the world’s religions have put away the swords…how about we talk?”

Up to now, no one has come out and said that to Islam. The Pope is the first.

While violence and Islam have gone together hand-to-glove since, perhaps, the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, politicians have repeatedly used the phrase “Islam means peace.” As befits our mania to “celebrate diversity”, a great deal of “due deference” has been accorded the followers of the prophet. They have been invited to the White House. They are upstanding members of the United Nations. They are offered a place at every economic summit, every national day of prayer. Good heavens, the US Post Office has created stamps for their religious holiday of Eid, and yet it has never been enough.

The world has more than amply demonstrated that it would like to see Islam put away its swords and get on with the business of simply living life - which is difficult enough without having to worry about jihad - and yet Islam will not comply. With Benedict’s words, the world is finally free to come out and ask, “Okay, short of our surrender and our conversions, what is it going to take to get you folks to settle down?”

That is the quintessential question of the age, for without the answer we will continue to pussy-foot and dance around the whole issue of Islamic violence for another few decades. A clear question and a clear answer will finally and fully tell the West what it needs to know in order to either defend itself seriously, or simply capitulate.                -- The Anchoress

(Bold text added.)

~~~~~~~

And the Islamic response thus far may best be summarized by this image:

So, intellectual discourse IS probably out of the question then, eh?