news-record.com

President Obama from Asia responding to critics of the decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in federal court in New York: People will see I'm right when we fry the SOB (paraphrasing). Then quickly adds: I'm not prejudging the outcome. Oh, no? He'd better be sure of this outcome.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., asked a pretty good question during a Judiciary Committee grilling of AG Eric Holder: Mohammed already tried to plead guilty before a military commission, so how are you going to improve on that?

Holder attempts to reassure skeptical relatives of 9/11 victims that the government has still-secret evidence that will make this all turn out right. Um, is that evidence being withheld from the defendant? If the government is taking the civilian court route, doesn't it have to follow the rules of discovery?

Speaking of Islamic terrorists, is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan still on the Army's payroll? He should have been discharged years ago for substandard job performance. I hope someone has at least initiated those proceedings now.

The administration trotted out Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to say, Don't pay any attention to the recommendation about breast-cancer screening from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That body doesn't set government policy.

So, exactly what does it do and why does it exist?

(That was a rhetorical question, but here's the official answer.)

On the subject of health-care cost containment, Harry Reid's bill is going to reduce the deficit ... by axing future Medicare spending. Somehow. Same as the House bill. I'll believe that when I see it.

A young woman in the next lane over had one of those pink breast-cancer ribbon decals on the back of her car ... and she was smoking a cigarette.

"Three weeks before Shaniya Davis disappeared, the Fayetteville man accused of kidnapping her was allowed to end his supervised probation six months early," the Fayetteville Observer reports.

Mario Andrette McNeill "appears to have been treated with leniency for years by an overburdened court system," reporter Greg Barnes adds.

Here's McNeill's Department of Correction record.

Unspeakably sad story. Investigations likely will turn up many opportunities missed to save this poor child.

My column today:

A famous graduate of a local university has been back in the news lately, and we’ll hear even more about him in the months and years ahead.

Although he’s known as an international mastermind, he’s hardly celebrated by his alma mater or its city. Better for them, and countless other people, if he never existed.

I’m referring to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who earned a degree in mechanical engineering from N.C. A&T in Greensboro in 1986.

Mohammed’s terrorist activities, his alleged role as chief planner and director of the 9/11 attacks, will be laid out whenever his trial in a New York federal court begins.

The public will get a chilling look at a man so monstrous he could take satisfaction in wiping out 3,000 innocent men, women and children from afar and personally perform the savage beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl. These actions were driven by his apparently boundless hatred of the United States. Needless to say, then, his years in North Carolina didn’t leave him with lasting fondness.

Others will have to reconstruct what experiences he  had here that might have fueled his animosity toward Americans and our culture. Disgust at our love for barbecue? Co-ed classes? The prominence of Greensboro’s Jewish community? Maybe we’re lucky he didn’t aim a plane in our direction.

So, is Mohammed the most vile person ever associated with North Carolina in our more than 400 years of history? You might have to go back to Blackbeard the pirate to find anyone even comparable — and not only because of the hideous whiskers. Here are some of our most notable rogues and scoundrels. You decide who’s No. 1.

Edward Thatch (or Teach, among other variations), best known as Blackbeard: He was “the most notorious pirate in the history of seafaring,” according to the North Carolina Maritime Museum. Making his home at least for a time in the town of Bath, he captured more than 50 ships before meeting his end in a fierce battle at Ocracoke Inlet on Nov. 22, 1718.

Flora MacDonald: A heroine of the Scottish highlands for guiding Charles Edward Stuart to safety after his failed rebellion in 1746, she emigrated with her husband to Wilmington in 1774. As the revolution began, she rallied immigrant Scots to the Loyalist side — not only opposing the Patriot cause, but supporting the same British who had crushed her Bonnie Prince Charlie.

William Blount: Born in Bertie County in 1749, he served in the Continental Congress and was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He moved west and was chosen to represent Tennessee in the U.S. Senate in 1796 but was expelled the next year for trying to induce Creek and Cherokee Indians to support British forces in an invasion of Spanish territories in Florida. His motive, according to the North Carolina History Project, was to increase the value of personal land holdings.

John Stanly: A congressman, he provoked a duel with political rival Richard Dobbs Spaight Sr. and fatally wounded him on Sept. 5, 1802. Spaight was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a leading force in North Carolina’s ratification of the nation’s founding document. He was governor from 1792 to 1795, then served in Congress. With his death by John Stanly’s hand, the state “lost one of its noblest sons,” according to the North Carolina Biographical Dictionary.

Alfred Moore Waddell and Furnifold Simmons: Waddell, a former congressman, led the white supremacist overthrow of Wilmington’s elected government in November 1898. The violent coup d’etat claimed 14 lives and drove hundreds of black residents out of the city. Simmons, head of the N.C. Democratic Party, launched a statewide campaign that resulted in disenfranchisement of black voters and the start of the Jim Crow era. He went on to serve 30 years in the U.S. Senate.

Fritz Klenner and Susie Lynch: These cousin/lovers were responsible for nine deaths, including their own, in a mad attempt to murder everyone who opposed them in a child-custody battle with Lynch’s ex-husband. When the horror concluded with the explosion of Klenner’s Chevrolet Blazer on a Guilford County road on June 3, 1985, Lynch’s two young sons were among the dead.

Because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t board one of the hijacked planes himself on Sept. 11, 2001, he’s still around to face the judgment of history. In my view, he’s the most loathsome person ever to live in our state. Even Blackbeard usually gave his victims a fighting chance and showed mercy to some.

Thanks for reading. You can call me at 373-7039, email me at dgclark@news-record.com or post a comment here.

I like dogs, so naturally the tale of poor Susie the puppy has bothered me.

I'm more troubled to learn that the young man charged in this case of extreme animal abuse is the father of a baby.

For some people, how they treat animals may predict how they treat children.

I hope social services is going to take a look.

You've seen the tough-as-nails, I-won't-release-killers Gov. Bev Perdue.

Now you can see the softer, Governor Mom side of our state's chief executive.

Bev's on TV giving tips for stopping the spread of the flu.

"Cough into your upper arm or elbow, never your hand," she instructs. Who knew?

The governor -- unfairly, in my opinion -- has been mired in low, low job-approval numbers most of the year. (OK, raising taxes is never popular, especially in a lousy economy. But at least she's an honest governor, which is an improvement.)

Now she's creeping up.

I don't think ultimately her hard line on criminals will prevail against the courts and the legacy of liberal sentencing laws of the '70s and '80s. But her standing with the public will gradually improve as she maintains high visibility with positive appearances around the state (like these in Greensboro and Winston-Salem yesterday).

Yes, and fighting the flu can't hurt, either.

Critics from across the political spectrum say congressional health-care reform plans do little to rein in medical costs, NPR reported this morning.

But here comes a recommendation to cut back on routine breast-cancer screening. (New York Times report here. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations here.)

The USPSTF cites medical reasons for its reversal ...

... but maybe cost savings also figures into the decision.

We'll see if similar recommendations follow for other early detection procedures.

There's long been a debate about the costs vs. benefits of routine screening. Maybe that becomes more relevant in the effort to produce affordable health-care reform.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb on the Obama administration's decision to try Khaild Sheik Mohammed in federal court in New York:

“I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so.  Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor.  It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts. 

“The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country.  And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all.  They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons."
 

Sen. Richard Burr, R-NC, called the decision shocking. There has been no statement from Sen. Kay Hagan, D-NC.

It's been obvious since 2001 that any mechanism for holding and meting out justice to captured terrorists is imperfect.

They're neither criminal suspects exactly nor prisoners of war exactly. The Bush administration never really figured out the problem, and the Obama administration hasn't so far, either.

Now it's decided that Mohammed and some others should have civilian trials in federal court. Yet it admits some others will remain held without charge indefinitely and most likely never will be put on trial.

Meanwhile, it's proceeding -- slowly -- on the president's promise to close the Guantanamo prison and now is investigating transferring individuals held there to a facility in Illinois -- where their status will remain exactly the same but, somehow, the symbolism will be different and perhaps more pleasing to world opinion.

The Mohammed trial could turn into quite a show. The big complication is presented by the interrogation methods used to extract information from him after his capture in Pakistan in 2003. He was waterboarded 183 times, a practice the current administration has branded as torture. Mohammed's defense attorneys can use that as grounds to have the defendant's confessions thrown out.

It also puts Bush administration policies on trial to some extent, which may be one goal of the Obama administration. Obama can tell the world, "Look how much better we are now. Instead of torturing terrorists, we're willing to give them a free and fair trial (or at least some of them)."

Hopefully, if prosecutors show the video of Mohammed personally cutting off the head of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, world opinion will say, "Waterboarding? This animal should have been thrown into a tank of tiger sharks."

Of course, there are two really bad scenarios here. One is that al-Qaida carries out a new terrorist attack in New York to coincide with Mohammed's trial. The other is that he gets off on some technicality.

If not for the valuable information intelligence officials said was extracted from Mohammed, it really would have been better if he'd never left Pakistan alive. A trial is more than he deserves. I share Sen. Webb's concern about the wisdom of this move.

One more thought: Who would ever want to serve on a jury at the trial of a top al-Qaida terrorist? You might have to spend the rest of your life in hiding.

Carolina solidifies its top spot and ASU and ECU rise with big wins.

In fact, they were the only members of our Tarheel Top Ten to post victories this weekend.

Elon couldn't win the big one.

The rankings:

1. UNC, 7-3 (No. 1 last week)

2. Appalachian State, 8-2 (5)

3. East Carolina, 6-4 (7)

4. Duke, 5-5 (2)

5. Wake Forest, 4-7 (3)

6. Elon, 8-2 (4)

7. N.C. State, 4-6 (6)

8. N.C. A&T, 5-5 (9)

9. Gardner-Webb, 5-5 (8)

10. UNC-Pembroke, 9-1 (10)

Big Four

Carolina, 1-0

Wake, 1-0

Duke, 1-1

State, 0-2

If the school board keeps pushing the sheriff and police chiefs on the Taser issue, Guilford County might end up without SROs in its high schools.

Then we will see with whom voters register their displeasure.

Sandra Alexander was outspoken in her opposition to Tasers, according to Brian Ewing's story today.

“I think the citizens of Guilford County have something to say about who occupies those offices, and we hope that law enforcement administrators will enter into this discussion about Tasers with that thought in mind,” she said.

Yes, the voters elect the sheriff, and they can even influence who occupies the office of police chief by leaning on their city council, which in turn can lean on the city manager, who can hire and fire the chief.

But I think it's a lot more likely voters will replace school board members who won't let SROs do their jobs.

According to Alexander, that job is "working with children," which "requires special training, and I don't know if they're getting the training they need in that regard."

OK, I suppose "working with children" is part of the job. SROs can be counselors, or at least positive role models for students.

But their primary purpose is to protect students and staff and to help provide a safe environment.

Anyone remember the rash of shootings at schools across the country a few years ago? It prompted the SRO response in the first place.

Don't we first and foremost want SROs to be properly trained -- and equipped -- to deal with threats to school safety and security?

Those threats can be every bit as serious as threats to public safety outside schools. Therefore, it seems to me, law-enforcement officers inside schools should have the same tools they may need outside schools.

No one likes the idea of an officer using a Taser on a teenager or, heaven forbid, a younger child. Far worse, of course, would be using a firearm. Should SROs also leave their firearms outside the school? What happens, then, when an armed intruder enters and starts shooting?

In any kind of emergency, of course, the SRO has to call for backup. When more police respond, would they have to drop their Tasers, and any other weapons the school board prohibits, before stepping onto the campus?

The unfortunate fact is that schools can be dangerous. Some students can be dangerous -- like the Columbine killers, or the more run-of-the-mill gang members. And schools can attract outside threats.

The public, again and again, has demanded police protection for their children's schools.

It's no accident that the Columbine-type tragedies were largely stopped when schools started placing law-enforcement officers on campus.

But you have to let law-enforcement officers be law-enforcement officers. And you have to trust them to do their jobs effectively and responsibly.

I have no problem with the school board inviting the sheriff and chiefs over for a discussion of Tasers and other school security concerns. Frank talk will be good for everyone.

The problem will occur if the board forces the law-enforcement agencies to make a choice between leaving officers in school but less than fully equipped, or pulling them out.

If that happens, I predict the voters won't be happy with their school board.

If I lived near the White Street Landfill, I would be none too happy hearing about the higher-than-expected number of pancreatic cancer cases among my neighbors.

However, that number by itself does not show that the landfill causes the disease.

What does? Here are some very basic answers to the question from the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

You'll notice that the first sentence contains this key phrase: "it is virtually impossible to tell what caused a specific person to develop pancreatic cancer ..."

Among the risk factors it lists are:

cigarette smoking

race (it is more common among African Americans)

chronic pancreatitis

diabetes

obesity

diet (a lot of meat and fried foods)

and genetics.

Did the people with pancreatic cancer have some or all of these risk factors? If so, how could anyone determine there was some other cause?

Another complication is that, for purposes of this study, researchers looked at the individual's address at the time of diagnosis. Is that where the person lived when the disease first developed? Unknown.

"It is recognized that this may not be the relevant address in terms of etiology for a disease with a long latent period that is causally related to environmental exposures, especially given the mobility of many populations."

The report says, "Additional study would be needed before statements can be made about the connection between potential contaminants associated with the landfill and cancer rates in the study area."

At a minimum, you would have to know what contaminants were present; how exposure occurred, and at what levels; and whether it is reasonable to conclude, based on medical evidence, that this exposure caused the specific disease in the particular individual -- and not some other cause.

The state report seems to rule out exposure via water or air, but it's always possible that additional investigation could come up with something that's been missed so far.

Years of additional investigation.

It's foolish to jump to conclusions. If I lived near the landfill, I would be uneasy but hardly convinced I were living under a pancreatic cancer death sentence.

At the same time, I'd like to see a lot more information.