Editorials A-Z Navigation
Gary Markstein by Gary Markstein
Jim Morin by Jim Morin
About Glenn McCoy
Glenn McCoy has been long recognized by his peers as a superior cartoonist. Besides his editorial cartoons, he also creates the daily comic strips The Duplex and The Flying McCoys.
© 2009 Universal Press Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (30) Jump to Comments Form
NoFearPup
said,
1 day ago
Yep, or as harleyquinn would say, “Yeb.” ;^D
Ken Warren said, 1 day ago
My reply would have been: “You say that like it would be a bad thing.”
scottfreitas
said,
1 day ago
You DO realize that not ONE time in all of American history has a hostile combatant captured on foreign soil been tried in a US criminal court?
To say our founders would be both perplexed and outraged by Osama doing this is a severe understatement.
There’s also a certain irony in Demoncrat-bankrupted New York being forced to spend an estimated 75 million dollars on this trial. As opposed to the mere forty thousand or so a Military Tribunal would cost…
oldlegodad
said,
1 day ago
A quick 9mm lethal injection in the base of the skull would be cheaper still. Even I couldn’t miss at 2”.
Ken Warren said, 1 day ago
Again a reminder that the Far Right loves the flag - hates what it stands for.
Garrett Herschleb said, 1 day ago
Ken, If you confuse citizen’s rights with terrorists who don’t even qualify for Geneva convention protections, you are one VERY confused person.
DrCanuck said, 1 day ago
scottfreitas said: “You DO realize that not ONE time in all of American history has a hostile combatant captured on foreign soil been tried in a US criminal court?”
Yup, for the simple reason that the category of “enemy combatant” didn’t exist until Bush/Cheney made it up. Couldn’t use POW because then the Geneva Convention would apply.
Have you all forgotten that already?
citynights
said,
1 day ago
Why is Obama undermining the military courts? He acts like there’s no such thing. Isn’t he commander and chief of the military so why confuse civilians crimes with war criminals?
NoFearPup
said,
1 day ago
O-Slime-a does whatever his marxist-handlers tell him; or what his own fragile ego comes up with…namely, B-S.
Ken Warren said, about 23 hours ago
Loco I don’t believe a word you just said (wrote) you may or may not care about your family, but you wrote what you wrote just to throw up a smoke sceen so we end up wasting our time on this nonsense instead of the real issues – we have some great problems facing us, most of them caused by the last 8 years of Cheney/Bush, high unemployement, broken economy, not one but two unnecessary wars, so what the Republican are doing is just attacking to keep people angry so they wont stop and think about who caused all of these problems.
I am sure that you don’t care that thanks to Cheney/Bush that the terrorist are stronger and bigger then they were before 9/11, or that are war on Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn’t help terrorist, in fact they were against terrorist) convinced a lot of people that we really hated muslins and wanted to destroy their religion.
tjdestry
said,
about 19 hours ago
You guys are arguing over a cartoon in which a guy says something he would never say that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. He might as well just draw Obama saying “I hate George Bush” and not try to put a joke around it. McCoy is bankrupt of ideas and simply feels a need to attack Obama.
ANandy said, about 17 hours ago
This is simply another BozOTUS flip-flop, as he supported the Military Tribunals as a Senator. He lies!
cabrobst said, about 16 hours ago
We need to bring the nut jobs on both sides to justice, those who attack innocent civilians and the terrorists.
Return to the rule of law and respect for human rights that the USA built since before WWII.
P.J. Liggett said, about 13 hours ago
Would someone please explain to me how a trial in FEDERAL court will cost either the city or state of New York anything?
danTheForth said, about 12 hours ago
DrCanuck, “enemy combatant” didn’t exist pre-Bush because prior to that warfare was assumed to be one nation against another. The shock of 9/11 was that a loosely-organized group of people, spread across several different countries, could essentially declare war on a nation without the use of a military. The type of warfare engaged in by Al Qaeda isn’t acknowledged in the Geneva Convention. Treating them as POWs under the Geneva Convention would allow them the benefits of an accord, the responsibilities of which they went out of their way to avoid.
They engaged in a new kind of warfare, and we needed a new way to categorize them.
Libertarian1 said, about 12 hours ago
^Millions and millions and millions in security.
michaelwme said, about 11 hours ago
Dr. Canuck: as a Canadian you are not aware that the US has a Constitution, and it is the Supreme Law of the Land, a Law to which the loyal Americans like Scott, striper, & etc all follow.
Article VIII clearly states, ‘In the event of a terrorist attack on Manhattan, every article in this document is replaced by its exact opposite, and this will also apply to the first ten amendments to this document.’
DrCanuck said, about 11 hours ago
Interesting argument, danForth. Could you tell me how you see al Qaeda as different in essence or actions from all other historical groups that have engaged in terrorism while not representing countries such as the IRA, Basques, Israelis, Palestinians, Tamils, et al.?
vhammon
said,
about 11 hours ago
DrCanuck,
“…a new kind of warfare.”
Al Qaeda is not so radically different from the Japanese Red Army of the 1980s with its connections to Palestinian Groups, aka Anti-Imperialist International Brigade (AIIB), Holy War Brigade, and the Anti-War Democratic Front.
These groups were dealt with as criminals under the justice systems of various nations. I guess at the time we had enough other wars going on, costing taxpayers gazillions, and so they did not need to be elevated to a grand, existential threat, as did Al Qaeda.
danTheForth said, about 10 hours ago
Most of those other groups operated within their own country or at least within their own region. Many of them had a single country as a base. And to include Israelis? That’s like saying Canadians. Israelis are people from Israel. They do represent a country.
Of course there have been other terrorist groups. We have tried members of the SLA, KKK, ALF and various militia groups in civilian courts because they were citizens/nationals acting against their own country or the people of their country.
Al Qaeda decided to act as a military force by trying to take down another sovereign nation. THEY TRIED TO TAKE DOWN A SOVEREIGN NATION - that is a military action. Yet they have no nation of their own, they do not fight in uniform. Against whom do we declare war, and how do we identify and deal with prisoners of war? There is no guideline.
This isn’t the IRA. This is the Mafia trying to take down France. Does France invade the US? New Jersey? Chicago? Italy? How do they know who they’re fighting? Could the ‘world community’ expect them to hold a Mafia hitman as a POW? Would we expect them to give them the treatment of their own citizens?
vhammon
said,
about 10 hours ago
How do you equate destroying two buildings with TAKING DOWN A SOVEREIGN NATION?
Is the U.S. so weak, that two buildings fall down and we go down?
Some of the translated writings of Al Qaeda leaders, as I recall, say that their intention is to follow the strategy that worked so well against the Russians in Afghanistan: engage us in a ‘long war’ until we’re insolvent.
We fell for that one, hook, line and sinker.
danTheForth said, about 9 hours ago
So you must have forgotten about the plane that hit the Pentagon and the other taken down before it reached Washington, right?
9/11 wasn’t an attack on New Yorkers, it was an attack on the US.
fritzoid said, about 9 hours ago
For crying out loud…
Yes, it was an attack on the US as a whole (at least, as opposed to an attack on NYC), but it was not intended to TAKE DOWN A SOVEREIGN NATION, and could never have succeeded as such. As it was, they only were able to do what they did because we were asleep at the wheel. They got friggin’ LUCKY.
It was a terrorist act, not an invasion. The goal was to create fear and confusion, not to topple our government. In that respect, it was a roaring SUCCESS. Because our Official Policy since 9/11 has been “Be afraid; be VERY afraid.”
Does Al Qaeda “Hate Our Freedom (TM)”, as our Fearless Leader so often maintained? Well, now we’re a lot less free. We were told “If we don’t do this, or we don’t do that, then the Terrorists Win (TM).” So instead we round up people on suspicion of being suspicious, we’re terrified of every shopping bag that someone leaves unattended in a subway station, we’re x-rayed and strip-searched and fingerprinted every time we walk into a government building. Our actions in Iraq (as well as at home) have been the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have wished for. Face it; the Terrorists Won.
ANandy said, about 9 hours ago
This is simply a different guerrilla tactic. Unconventional activities require unconventional response.
Precictably BozOTUS stepped on his crank again.
danTheForth said, about 9 hours ago
I’ll admit my use of the words “take down” was not the best choice. That phrase has several possible meanings, and the one I intended is clearly not the one that is being inferred. No, they did not intend to invade and overthrow. But they did intend to take us down from our superpower status, they did intend to take us down from our financial superiority, and they did intend to take down our sense of national pride and patriotism. They intended to render us impotent, which I think can rightly be referred to as taking us down. If you change “TAKE DOWN” to “ATTACK,” the criticism of my choice of words is gone, but the message is just as striking.
So many claim that we’re less free because we inspect bags and x-ray travelers (and others). I say we’re less dead. Each week there are numerous tests of security at airports, with blocks of cheese taped to cell phones and watches in checked baggage. People leave bags at airports and watch the TSA response. Air marshals are followed and watched by people who document their movements. If you had access to the TSA’s Suspicious Incident Report, you’d realize the watchfulness is not without reason.
When there’s something to be afraid of, there’s nothing wrong with telling people to be afraid.
fritzoid said, about 7 hours ago
“[T]hey did intend to take us down from our superpower status,…”
There’s no way they could have done that, and there’s no way they could have expected that, so I cannot believe that was their intent.
“[T]hey did intend to take us down from our financial superiority,…”
There’s no way they could have done that, and there’s no way they could have expected that, so I cannot believe that was their intent.
“[T]hey did intend to take down our sense of national pride…”
BINGO! They hurt our pride. We were smug, insulated, and arrogant; now we’re merely arrogant.
“…and patriotism.”
Again, no. But one out of four ain’t bad…
“If you had access to the TSA’s Suspicious Incident Report, you’d realize the watchfulness is not without reason.”
Perhaps I would. Can you give me access to that? Do you have access to that?
Every time I’ve flown since they introduced color-coded threat levels, we’ve been at Threat Level Orange. Every time I’ve checked on somebody else’s flight status, we’ve been at Threat Level Orange.
On those exceedingly rare instances when I’ve heard that some incident has been worth reporting, we’ve been at Threat Level Orange. When we’ve gone months and months without a reported incident, we’ve still been at Threat Level Orange.
It’s worse than meaningless.
Kylop said, about 6 hours ago
Sorry Fritz but we’re still smug….in some places its actually encouraged and through the power of denial some are still insulated.
fennec said, about 3 hours ago
Why worry. McCoy is a dip…
Ken Warren said, about 1 hour ago
Maybe this isn’t cartoon for this, but the mention of the plane Americans took over, or tried to take over reminds of very important fact that has been lost:
AMERICANS ARE NOT COWARDS!
Over 3,000 people died on 9/11, but thousands and thousdands didn’t. No one is sure how many people were in the towers, but it could have been over ten thousand or more, and what did they do – THEY DIDN’T PANIC, THEY DID RUN SCREAMING OUT OF THE BUILDING.
Hollywood always shows people running from buildings, trampling children, the weak, or elderly. That didn’t happen,in fact some of the people who died did so because they stayed in the building to help others.
Terrorist aren’t going to defeat America, for one thing there aren’t very many of them, but the other is that we aren’t going to panic, we aren’t going to run (some want us to give up our freedoms), but we aren’t going to do that either.
I can tell you this that no one NO ONE is going to be able to highjack a plane with Americans on it, we may die stopping you, but we aren’t going let you kill others.
The terrorist want us to panic, let’s not let them win, just calm down and say bleeep YOU.
charliekane said, 18 minutes ago
9/11. A criminal act. No more an act of war than Oklahoma City. No reason not to prosecute it that way.