Martinez Trial - Verdict

The verdict is in for Alberto Martinez:

Military jury acquits Martinez of all charges

FORT BRAGG, N.C. In a stunning verdict following a three-and-a-half year legal battle, Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez of Rensselaer County was acquitted of killing two superior officers late today.

In the military courtroom on the sprawling Fort Bragg base, family members erupted in astonishment when they heard Martinez had been acquitted of premeditated murder during the court martial.

"You slaughtered our husbands and that's it!?" Barbara Allen, a widow of one of the victims, screamed at Martinez. "You piece of (expletive). You murdered my husband."

Allen, who was married to 1st Lt. Louis Allen, 34, of Milford, Pa., and Siobhan Esposito, widow of Capt. Phillip Esposito, 30, of Suffern, put their heads in their hands and sobbed uncontrollably when they heard the verdict. Esposito and Allen were killed on a military base in Tikrit, Iraq.

Martinez, 41, a National Guardsman from Schaghticoke, showed no emotion as he was escorted out of the courtroom, a free man. He faced the death penalty if convicted.

I don't even know what to say. I don't believe for a second that Alberto Martinez is innocent. But I guess there's nothing left to do but live with the verdict; live with the fact that two good men died, and the guy I believe is responsible for their deaths gets to walk. It's not the first time in human history this has happened, and it sure as hell won't be the last. But it still sucks.

Martinez trial jury deliberations - Day 1

Here's the latest:

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) -- A military jury hasn't reached a verdict in the case against a New York Army National Guard soldier accused of killing two superior officers in Iraq.

Jurors deciding the fate of Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez deliberated for about eight hours Wednesday at Fort Bragg without reaching a decision. The 14-member panel was scheduled to resume its work Thursday morning.

Link

Home stretch - The trial of Alberto Martinez

Here's the latest on the case:

Military panel gets fragging case; soldier faces death penalty

West Point — A military panel will begin deliberations Wednesday to decide the fate of Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez, a soldier accused of killing two local officers from the New York National Guard while the three were deployed together in Iraq.

The case is the first in either the Iraq or Afghanistan wars in which a soldier is accused of killing a superior officer, a crime known as “fragging.”

A unanimous guilty verdict could mean a death sentence for Martinez of Troy, who is charged with the premeditated murder of Capt. Phil Esposito of Suffern and 1st Lt. Lou Allen, a native of Chester. The three were serving together with the 42nd Infantry Division in Tikrit, Iraq, on June 7, 2005, when the killings occurred.

Allen and Esposito died after a Claymore mine detonated just outside Esposito’s room, as the two were playing a game of Risk. In closing arguments broadcast live Tuesday to West Point from Fort Bragg, N.C., prosecutor Maj. John Benson said Martinez was the only one capable of obtaining the mine, as well as the grenades used as a diversion in the attack.

About half-dozen of Allen’s family members watched the live video feed of the trial at West Point Tuesday. Allen’s wife, Barbara, and his parents, Bob and Vivian Allen, were with Esposito’s family in Fort Bragg.

After 3+ years, the end is finally in sight. I hope the verdict provides the Esposito and Allen families with some closure. I think they've been waiting too long as it is. Keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

Attention McCain Supporters

Have you voted yet? If you haven't, go do so ASAP. I've had it up to here with those stupid exit polls. Gallup, Rasmussen, Opinion Dynamics etc. should NOT get to decide this election. Don't be dissuaded by the crap you're seeing on TV. Those polls may be right, but then again, they may not. Let's not let the pollsters, pundits, and news droids convince us to disenfranchise ourselves.

Alberto Martinez case update

At long last, the trial of Alberto Martinez is under way.

Jury selection in Troy soldier's case

FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- Jury selection begins in the trial of a Troy soldier accused of killing two Army officers with a bomb in Iraq. National Guard Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez is accused of killing New York National Guard officers Captain Phillip Esposito and First Lieutenant Louis Allen.

A military judge rejected three last-minute defense requests to dismiss charges against him Monday. Martinez could face the death penalty if convicted.

The trial is being held at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Opening arguments are set for next Monday.

It's about damned time. This has dragged on for over three years now. His lawyers have apparently grasped at every straw--real or imagined--to get this guy off. Now he'll have his day in court, and the families of Captain Esposito and Lieutenant Allen can finally have a resolution to this nightmare.

Further reading:

Pain lingers for officer's family

Families prepare for start of frag trial

The Audacity of Gullibility

So, Hillary's going to get a vote at the Dem Convention. Isn't this nice?

Dems' Deal: Hillary Gets Convention Vote

A deal has been brokered between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that will allow Clinton's name to be placed in nomination at next week's Democratic nominating convention.

The former rivals announced the agreement today in a joint statement, shedding light on a hushed negotiation between the Clinton and Obama camps over how to recognize Clinton and her supporters without overshadowing or detracting from a convention designed to nominate Obama as the party's presidential candidate.

Is this party unity, or is it something else? I don't know about you, but I can't help but think it's something else. Here's some food for thought: If the Obama campaign somehow derails between now and the end of the convention, there is now a mechanism in place to nominate Hillary. Convenient, isn't it?

But how can Obama's campaign derail at this late date? Hasn't his past been laid bare by the relentless watchdogs of the news media? Absolutely. There won't be any last minute surprises here. After all, they put Obama under a microscope. Just like they do with all candidates. Which would include John Edwards, right?

Funny that the Edwards story wasn't really pushed in the mainstream media until long after Edwards was out of the race. Funnier still that it was broken by the National Enquirer, a publication with a connection to the Clintons. Funniest of all was the recent revelation that some in the Clinton camp blame Edwards for Hillary's loss in the primaries.

Is all of this a coincidence? I can't say for sure, but I tend to doubt it. If there's a major revelation about Barrack Obama in the near future, I guess we'll have our answer. And Barry O will know he got played.

Target Practice: Gas Prices

I'm a little out of practice at this political blogging thing, so maybe I should warm up on an easy target. And what's an easier target than the ridiculously high cost of gasoline?

I think the American public is finally getting fed up with the B.S. they've been getting fed about gas prices. But don't expect the polytishuns to stop dishing out the excrement just yet. Here are my replies to a few of the more popular shit sandwich recipes currently being served:

"You can't drill your way out of high gas prices."
Yeah, so? Granted, drilling won't solve all of our problems, but increasing the supply of oil can only help the situation. That's Economics 101, people. The solution to high gas prices is actually a number of solutions. Dismissing anything that's not a one-off magic bullet is almost too stupid for even Congress to believe. Almost.

"Even if we do drill, we won't see any oil for (insert the number of your choice here) years."
Again, so what? Ten years from now (or twenty, or thirty) is going to get here anyway. We might as well have the oil too. Would you tell a high school kid to quit school and get a job now because education won't pay off for years? Of course not. This "instant gratification or nothing" argument isn't something I want to hear from the people in whose hands we've placed the future of the country. Not to mention what a bad message it sends to "the children"®.

"We need to conserve more."
True enough, but this measure alone isn't a cure-all. Here's a newsflash for the conservation crowd: Oil is used for more than fueling our cars. It's used to heat homes, generate electricity, run manufacturing machinery, and as a raw material in the manufacture of many products. So driving less, or trading in our gas-guzzling SUVs for Smart Cars, isn't going to solve the problem.

"We need to focus on alternative energy sources."
No argument there. But it's ironic that many of the people who push this one are also the ones who argue that drilling in ANWR won't produce oil for ten years. Does anyone really believe that science will provide us with a viable alternative to petroleum in less than ten years. Scientific discovery doesn't follow a timetable. Just ask Thomas Edison. Besides, even if they came up with the new technology tomorrow, it would take years for it to supplant the current technology. Think about it. If GM started selling a car that ran on water (or daffodils, or good intentions etc.), do you really think everyone is going to toss their old cars in the trash, and run out and buy a new one tomorrow? And will their finance companies forgive their car loans? Not likely. It would probably take at least ten years before the new technology became predominant. If, and when, that technology is developed.

The solution to the problem of high oil/gasoline prices isn't any single measure, it's a number of measures. And we need to start them, like, yesterday. Especially the ones that will take time, like alternative fuels (new nuclear power plants would be really helpful), building new refineries, and (especially) domestic drilling. Hell, if Bill Clinton hadn't vetoed an attempt to drill in ANWR in 1995, oil would be flowing from there right now. Thanks, Bill. Good work on that "bridge to the 21st Century" thing. And don't worry, your political descendants are carrying on your work. But hopefully not for long.

Has Anyone Seen My Motivation?

If you're one of the very few people who still checks this blog from time to time, it's probably no secret to you that I've been pretty much devoid of blogging inspiration lately.

So, what's to blog about? Politics? The 2008 election has been going on for seven or eight years now. I've been sick to death of that for months. And the politicians become more politician-like (if that's possible) every day.

How about the military? Waste of time. The situation in Iraq has improved considerably, but the news media has no interest in the story. Unless things suddenly get worse, of course. And besides, people have all pretty much made up their minds about the war in Iraq.

So, what does that leave? The news? Once you get past the politics, all you have left is just depressing: the advance of the nanny state, political correctness on the march nationwide, creeping sharia, open borders, a pop-culture that has degenerated to a point well below the lowest common denominator; somebody please pass me the Prozac.

OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but I do my best blogging here when I'm pissed off. And I've just gotten tired of being pissed off. That being said, being pissed off beats the hell out of being pissed on. And with this election looming, well, the potential for all of us getting pissed on increase by leaps and bounds every day. Yeah, I'm gonna have to say something, even if I can't be sure if anyone will be here to read it.

It's Your Money, and I'm Welcome to It

I caught part of Sen. Hillary Clinton's interview on the O'Reilly Factor last night. It seemed to be much of the same. One comment from her that stood out to me involved raising taxes. She said that she'd only raise taxes on people making more than $250k a year. Her reasoning was that such a tax increase would allow for tax cuts for the people who work for their money.

Um, excuse me? Where does Hillary Clinton, or any politician, get off deciding who really deserves what they make. I've met people with six and seven digit incomes who worked their asses off for every penny they got. And I've met people scraping by on minimum wage who not only didn't even deserve what little they were making, they should've been charged rent by their employer for the space they took up during the work day.

The whole idea that government gets to decide who is more deserving of the money they earn implies that all money really belongs to the government in the first place. Sorry, but there's nothing Democratic about that concept. To me, it sounds more like this.

Outraged! Outraged, I say!

I guess Barack Obama has finally had his Sista Souljah monent.

Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he was outraged and appalled by the latest comments from his former pastor, who asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and the U.S. government was responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus.

The presidential candidate is seeking to tamp down the growing fury over Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary remarks that threaten to undermine his campaign.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.

After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, Wright made three public appearances in four days to defend himself. The former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has been combative, providing colorful commentary and feeding the story Obama had hoped was dying down.

Hat tip: Drudge

Let's see, it took him 20 years as a member of Rev. Wright's flock, and another couple months as a Presidential candidate to figure out that Wright is an extremist nut. From where I sit, that can be chalked up to one of three things:

1. Obama is very slow on the uptake.

2. Obama figured it out long ago, but lacked the guts to speak up.

3. Obama is feigning outrage in order to put the issue to rest so he can refocus our collective attention on his mantra of "change."

So, which is it? Is he dumb, gutless, or a slick-talking con man who thinks we're all idiots? Whichever one it is, I wouldn't want this guy in the big chair during a time of crisis. Would you?

Bombast from Bloomberg

NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg--who's not a Republican, but he played one on TV (long enough to get elected, at any rate)--is at it again.

NY mayor looking forward to an 'adult' in the White House

NEW YORK (AP) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who decided against a White House run, said Thursday his endorsement will go to the most straight-talking candidate and predicted "at least we'll have an adult in office who can lead and can accomplish something."

Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned- independent, later ducked a question about whether he was taking a shot at President Bush.

h/t: Drudge

Of course he was taking a shot at Bush, how stupid does he think we are? OK, I know; too stupid to decide for ourselves on what to eat, or whether to smoke.

But look on the bright side, every minute that Mike Bloomberg spends sniping at President Bush is one less minute spent thinking up new ways to run our lives under his pined-for nanny state.

Alberto Martinez Case Update

Here's the latest in the murder case against SSG Alberto Martinez.

Prosecutors to appeal ruling in fragging that killed Suffern Army captain

Prosecutors in the murder trial of a man accused of killing two Army officers in Iraq will appeal a court decision that prevents them from using potentially incriminating statements made by the accused to officers who arrested him.

Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez, 40, of Troy, N.Y., is charged with two counts of premeditated murder in the 2005 deaths of Capt. Phillip Esposito, 30, of Suffern, who was his company commander, and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen, 34, of Milford, Pa., second in command of the 42nd Infantry Division's headquarters support company in Tikrit, Iraq.

The statements in question were allegedly made by Martinez to an officer while he was being advised of his rights and to other law enforcement officers, but were not formally recorded.

Col. Stephen Henley, a military judge hearing pretrial motions, refused to admit the statements in the final court-martial scheduled for July and refused it again on appeal. The prosecution, however, was given the right to appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

One aspect of this story that has been lost in the news media's (limited) coverage is the impact all of this is having on the families of the murdered men.

Family pleas over soldier's trial

CHESTER — Lou Allen's family has campaigned heavily to have the murder trial of his accused killer held at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

The military said no.

The family then campaigned to have a video feed broadcast to West Point so family and friends of 1st Lt. Allen, from Chester, and Capt. Phil Esposito of Suffern could watch as the much-postponed trial begins in late June.

Now the family doesn't think it will get that, either.

At a recent pre-trial hearing in Fort Bragg, N.C., the prosecution asked to have a video feed broadcast to an armory in Latham, N.Y., two hours away from Chester, and near the family of the accused, Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez. The judge has not yet ruled on the motion.

OK, I'm no lawyer, but I fail to see how this (mis)treatment of the victims' families serves justice. Or is justice not a priority to the military in this case?

Iraq: Getting a Clue

Here's a shocker: Our illustrious media is, yet again, totally missing the point in covering the current troubles with the Shia militias in Iraq. Unbelievable, isn't it? If you're interested in some good, in-depth analysis of the situation, check out CTA Symposium: Iraq v. Mahdi Army. The symposium includes analysis by Bill Roggio, Dr. Michael Ledeen, LTC Ralph Peters (Ret.), and Mohammed and Omar Fadhil of the Iraq the Model blog. Forget the mainstream media*, if you want to understand what's really going on over there, these folks are the place to start.


*Please note that I'm not suggesting you give up on the MSM entirely. They're still a good source for stories on Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and other really important stuff. They're just useless when it comes to stories involving domestic or foreign policy, that's all.

Alberto Martinez Update

Here's the latest on the case against accused murderer Alberto Martinez.

Soldier's murder trial faces delay

The trial for a soldier accused of murdering two officers in Iraq in summer 2005 could be delayed another 40 days by prosecutors seeking to strengthen their case.

Jury selection in the court-martial of Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez of Troy, N.Y., is scheduled to begin on June 24. Prosecutors at a Fort Bragg pre-trial hearing on Thursday said they need a key piece of evidence that was suppressed in the fall: statements that Martinez made to investigators shortly after an explosion that killed Capt. Phillip T. Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen of the New York National Guard.

Martinez is accused of detonating a mine to kill the officers. There has been testimony that he clashed with Esposito, his commanding officer, and faced a reprimand — which could cost him a rank and pay — for illegally giving military-owned computer printers to an Iraqi. If convicted, he could get the death penalty.

Other developments in the case:

The prosecutors asked Henley to permit a closed-circuit video feed of the court-martial be transmitted to upstate New York so the family and friends of Martinez can more conveniently observe the case. The trial is expected to run approximately five to eight weeks, not including the time required for jury selection.

Defense lawyers asked for all autopsy photos to be suppressed because images of the men’s wounds might mislead and inflame the jury. Prosecutors argued they need the photos to describe the officers’ injuries to the jury.

And the case keeps dragging on, as Martinez's lawyers look for any technicality they can find to avoid facing the facts about this case; facts that hang a big "guilty" sign around their clients neck. In the meantime, the families of the two murdered men continue to suffer through delay after delay, unable to move on with their lives. It's been three years, for crying out loud. Whatever happened to "Justice delayed is justice denied?"

Race and Unity and Flags, Oh My!

Barrack Obama gave his big speech today, the one that was supposed to distance him from the nutty hate-filled rantings of his longtime (20 years) pastor and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright. The picture above shows Obama giving said speech (and no, it's NOT an AP photo). Check out all those flags. I count four in that picture. Wow. Barrack Obama must love this country. Either that, or he thinks most of us are friggin' idiots that are easily manipulated by careful staging and ornamentation.

POETIC JUSTICE

It looks like Eliot Spitzer's political career has reached its end. Some of the press are labeling this a sex scandal. Sex scandal? Eliot Spitzer wasn't--as far as we know--having an affair. He was paying women to have sex with him. That's illegal in every state in the US except Nevada. Don't like that law? Then change it. But until then, what he was doing is a crime. A crime he had prosecuted as Attorney General--at least twice. It's also worth remembering that he engaged in some serious financial gymnastics in order to pay for these services. Said gymnastics may very well be illegal.

The real tragedy here is the pain it brings to Eliot Spitzer's family, especially his daughters. They're going to have to come to terms with the reality that daddy apparently thinks of women as a commodity to be bought or rented. Sad.

The pain it is causing his family aside, this is a fitting end to Eliot Spitzer's political career. After all, he is a man who made his reputation by bullying; and by destroying, and threatening to destroy, the reputations of others. This is well illustrated by Alan Reynolds' 2005 article Trial by Press Release:

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched a complaint against the insurance brokerage arm of Marsh & McClellan last November with his usual flamboyant press release accusations of "widespread corruption."

Unsurprisingly, Marsh recently settled in the usual way -- by writing a big check and doing whatever Mr. Spitzer asked. That included replacing its chief executive officer with an old friend of Mr. Spitzer's, Michael Cherkasky.

There was no trial, of course. Writing in Slate, Daniel Gross noted "Spitzer doesn't like taking cases to trial. Instead, he has developed a more powerful tactic: He exploits the threat of stock declines and business losses to force industries to change.... He didn't simply indict. He issued press releases."

Trial-by-press-release circumvents truth and justice. No judge ever separates "findings of fact" from fictional prosecutorial accusations. The accused never get to face their accusers (usually competitors). And no jury is ever asked if Mr. Spitzer's complaints have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Poetic justice, that's what I call it. It's just too bad so many people had to be hurt in the rpocess.

And What of Hillary

It's looking for all the world that Hillary Clinton's campaign is all but over. The fearsome Clinton political machine is about to get knocked out by a relative political neophyte. Who'd have thought that was possible. I know I didn't. So, what next? What's Hillary going to do now.

Option 1: Admit defeat. Quit graciously. Wholeheartedly support Obama for President in the national election. Become just another member of the Senate. Give up on any Presidential aspirations, or wait patiently until 2016 to run (providing Obama wins). I don't know about you, but I'm not seeing this one as too likely.

Option 2: The Doomsday option. Attack Obama with everything they have. Deploy the ninja dirt-diggers and unleash the sharp-tongued surrogate mouthpieces to spread the word on the cable news shows. This might work, it could secure the nomination for Hillary if she fires up the machine ASAP. The problem is the general election. This would turn off many of the independent voters that Obama has energized. And the black voters would completely abandon Hillary. 2008 would be a wash, and future runs would be out of the question.

Option 3: Just keep doing what you're doing. And lose anyway. I see this as the most likely option, as the once-vaunted Clinton political machine seems to have completely lost its mojo. The worst part is that they don't seem to realize what a crappy job they've been doing. They keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with the mistaken belief that the new deck chair arrangement will stop the sinking. It won't.

So, assuming that Hillary doesn't pull the trigger on the Doomsday Machine, what's she going to do after Obama wins the nomination? She has to support him; or at least appear to. If she doesn't, she'll turn off independents, hard-core liberals, and black voters. She'll never get the party's Presidential nomination down the road if that happens.

But if Obama wins the election, a 2012 run is pretty much off-limits for Hill. That means she has to wait until 2016, which means she'd be 69 years old on election day. It also means she has to wait eight whole years to be President. That's eight years of toiling away as one of 100 Senators. Eight years out of the limelight--let's face it, a President Obama will wind up sucking all the air out of the room. It also means eight more years for more scandals to surface. Or for Bill to put his foot in his mouth (again). Or to get busted in a cheesy sex scandal (again). I don't think Hillary would be too happy with that future. Nope, not one bit.

OK, so here's what I think will happen: Obama wins the nomination. Hillary and Bill are gracious--as gracious as they can be, anyway--in defeat. She endorses Obama, and campaigns for him. The campaigning focuses more on attacking McCain and the Republicans than it does on Obama's qualifications to be President.

Behind the scenes, the aforementioned ninja dirt-diggers hit the streets. They scoop up every piece of information they can find on Obama (and his wife, his church, etc) that the campaign would rather you not know. Then the info gets fed through surrogates to right-wing talk radio hosts and bloggers. Once it hits the news, Hillary can feign surprise and declare the information "troubling." Or she can feign outrage and rail against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and the "Republican smear machine." Either way, it hurts Obama. And Hillary's fingerprints aren't on the weapon, or so she would hope.

If Obama loses the election, that leaves Hillary Clinton free to run in 2012. And without Barrack Obama to contend with.

Of course this is all conjecture on my part. I could be wrong. As in all things, time will tell. If all this does come to pass, remember you read it here first.

A Valentine for Some Very (Self) Important People

To: The Marine-hating folks of Berkley, CA and Code Pink
From: Col. Nathan R. Jessep, USMC

People, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men and women with guns. Who's gonna do it? You, Medea Benjamin? We have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for dead terrorists, and you curse the military. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know. That enemy deaths, while tragic, probably save lives. And our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you WANT us on that wall, you NEED us on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a bunch of arrogant screechy cowards who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that we provide, and then attack us for providing it. We would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, we suggest you drop your bongs, pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, we don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Do the Right Thing (Ya Bunch of Racists!)

Well, isn't this just special:

Rendell: Race Factor Could Hurt Obama

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

So, what do you think? Is Ed Rendell just expressing a low opinion of a portion of his constituency, or is he trying to play the race card for Hillary? Rendell being the partisan hack he is, neither would surprise me. Will his plan backfire and cause liberal "white guilt" to shame voters into voting for Obama? Time will tell.

Alberto Martinez Update

Here's the latest on the case against the man accused of murdering Captain Philip Esposito and Lieutenant Louis E. Allen in Iraq in 2005.

Martinez to face separate courts-martial

A sergeant accused of killing two officers in 2005 will face a separate court-martial for other charges, a judge ruled Thursday.

Lawyers for Army Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez argued that the jury would be unfairly influenced if Martinez is tried for murder at the same time as additional charges against him, which include stealing office equipment and possessing firearms and explosives.

Judge rules on motions in fragging case

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — The judge in the case against the man accused of killing 1st Lt. Lou Allen has given the defense less than two weeks to give notice of their plan to prove he is mentally retarded.

Staff Sgt. Martinez may avoid death penalty

A New York National Guardsman accused of killing two of his officers in Iraq in 2005 has two weeks to ask for a pre-trial hearing to determine if he is mentally retarded, a military judge ruled Thursday.

Army Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez is charged with killing Capt. Phillip T. Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen. He faces the death penalty.

But if the military judge, Col. Stephen Henley, finds that Martinez is mentally retarded, the law prevents him from being sentenced to death, even if he is found guilty.

This mentally retarded angle really irks me. Not only does it seem like an abuse of the justice system (I don't believe for a second that this guy is mentally retarded), but it smears the entire Non-Commissioned Officer Corps of the US military. I guess I shouldn't be surprised; attorneys have spent decades ruining the public image of their own profession. Why should they hesitate to ruin someone else's?

PLAYTIME'S OVER

So Hillary (and co-presidential candidate Bill) Clinton got beaten in SC--beaten badly, as it turns out. Barrack Obama, we are told, is the next JFK. Even Senator Teddy boy is set to endorse him. And kids love him. Yeah, even the white ones.

So what's next for Hillary on her journey to coronation? Expect to see her reinvent herself...again. And expect to see Bill shoved into the background. As it turns out, even Democrats are sick of blow-hard Bill.

But what happens if the polls--and you know Hill and Bill will be watching the polls--leading up to Super Tuesday show Obama in the lead? I don't know about you, but I'm thinking that that's when the gloves will come off. Oh, Hillary will still be sweet as pie. And Bill will stay silent, if they can keep him under control. But the surrogates will hit the streets in force. Those dedicated Clinton loyalists who were deployed to save Bill's bacon during his impeachment will show up on the TV news shows to reveal what the Clinton Secret Police have dug up on Obama. And it won't be pretty.

The question is this: How will the voters react? Will they be disgusted, but vote for Hillary anyway? Or will they finally punish the "politics of personal destruction" at the ballot box?

McCain and the GOP Base

I saw this story linked over at The Drudge Report. Apparently John McCain's mother Roberta was on C-SPAN recently where she expressed the opinion that her son was not getting support from the base of the Republican Party. Gee Mrs. McCain, why do you think that is? Could it be because he compromised with filibustering Democrats who were blocking votes on federal judicial nominees? Could it be because he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, a bill designed to limit political speech? Could it be that he's been consistently weak on border security and supports amnesty for illegal aliens?

Mrs. McCain appears to be bewildered by the lack of support.

Well, everything they’ve done and said. … Now I’m really popping off, but he worked like a dog to get Bush re-elected. …He’s backed Bush in everything except Rumsfeld. Have you heard other senators and congressmen backing Bush over eight years? Find me it–give me a name. I’ve not seen any public recognition of the work that he’s done for the Republican party.

(A transcript of the interview is available here.)

He backed "Bush." Which Bush would that be? Would that be the Bush who didn't appear to have the stomach to fight for his judicial nominees? Would that be the Bush who is weak on border security and favors a "guest worker" program that amounts to amnesty for illegal aliens? Would that be the Bush who signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law?

If John McCain wants the support of the Republican base, he's going to have to show some support for the Republican base. It's a two-way street, and he'd better figure that out before he crashes.

2008: HOBSON'S CHOICE

In a post on the recent demise of Fred Thompson's presidential campaign, Phoenix, of Villains Vanquished, bemoans the apparent lack of choice in the coming election.

Honestly, the entire field of candidates remaining are unsatisfactory. They are all fucking liberals. Even the Republicans!

I wouldn't go so far as to call them all liberals, but I can't deny that the conservative credentials of all of the GOP candidates are less than stellar. McCain has been too soft on border security and illegal aliens; and he sponsored that horrific campaign finance reform free speech control bill. Giuliani has been too anti-gun. Romney is just too slick by half--maybe three quarters. He's also a flip-flopper on abortion, which will turn off much of the Republican base. And the Mormon issue will hurt him too. I know, it shouldn't; but it will. And Ron Paul? I pretty much see him as the Republican Dennis Kucinich. And his views on foreign policy are too in line with traditional libertarian thinking, which has its roots in the 19th century--where it might have worked, but not today. Isolationism won't work in the 21st century.

So the question is this: Who should a true-blue conservative vote for? Would said true-blue conservative be better off sitting this one out? Ultimately, we all have to make that decision for ourselves. As for me, I will not sit this one out. This election is about damage control. It's about choosing the lesser of two evils. The country is in a crisis situation. Ask any survival expert how to handle a crisis situation, and they'll tell you the following:

1. Keep cool. Don't let your emotions take over.

2. NEVER ask "why me." Keep focused on the job at hand. Reflection and recrimination are for when the crisis has passed.

3. Figure out what you have to do, then do it. Make it happen, and keep moving.

If you're stranded in the wilderness and there's no food available, you eat bugs if you have to. You don't starve yourself to protest the lack of menu selection. You do what you have to in order to survive. When you get back to civilization, you can have a filet mignon and an icy cold brew (or whatever you were craving while you were lost in the woods). But first you have to survive.

This is a time of crisis, and I've resigned myself to eating bugs in November. That's not a particularly appetizing prospect, but it's better than eating shit.

"SUPPORTING" THE TROOPS

There are those who claim to "support the troops, but not the war." I have no doubt that many people opposed to the war do support the troops, but, as far as I'm concerned, this guy is not one of them.

College football season is officially over now. I hope Ohio State didn't ruin your office pool. Man, I should have known better than to pick a Big X team. What was I thinking?

Anyhow, now that all of our office football pools are over, let's start a new one. As of this writing we have had 3,911 soldiers killed in Iraq. On what date do you think we'll hit 4,000?

You can read the rest of this bovine by-product here. You can even leave a comment, if you're so inclined. I'm not going to bother; waste of time.

I'm sure that this guy, Mark Flandersberry, thinks he's doing the troops a favor by calling for their withdrawal from Iraq. But he's doing it by making light of their deaths. And that just makes him a cruel asshole, plain and simple. Support like this the troops don't need.