Let’s not jump to conclusions

Is Howard Dean only figuratively out of his mind? This AP story has me wondering: “Dean: It’s premature to convict bin Laden.” How many symptoms of utter blinking derangement can you count in the two lead sentences of the story?
“Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean says it’s premature to recommend what penalty Osama bin Laden should face before he’s been legally determined to be guilty of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
“Asked whether bin Laden should be tried in the United States and put to death, Dean told The Concord Monitor, ‘I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.'”
Now for extra credit, in order to answer the following questions you may consult the Concord Monitor story on which the wire service story is based: “Dean’s secure in his view of Saddam.”
Howard is also uncertain whether Mr. bin Laden should be tried in the United States; he said he didn’t think it would make any differenece where he was tried. But could he really get a fair trial in the United States? Aren’t we at risk of a serious violation of his constitutional rights?
One more question: Is it really possible that the Democrats are going to nominate this guy to run for the office of president of the United States?
HINDROCKET adds: Unbelievable. I’ve always thought that Bill Clinton’s turning down of Sudan’s offer to hand over bin Laden because Justice Department lawyers weren’t sure they could get a “conviction” was a travesty that revealed much about the soul of the modern Democratic Party. But Clinton’s fecklessness was at least pre-Sept. 11. Dean has now gotten religion, supposedly so he can be more competitive in the South, but if he isn’t ready to “prejudge” bin Laden I think he needs to start worrying about carrying New York. And Vermont.
On the subject of Dean, the New York Post weighs in with a very nice editorial titled “Lunatic Charges Against W”–a subject that has been well-covered on the internet, but not sufficiently in the mainstream press. The Post says:
“Speaking of Democrats, has Oliver Stone taken over the party? It sure looks that way.
“Increasingly, leading Democrats – including its front-running presidential candidate – are talking up the most bizarre conspiracy theories to illustrate their disdain for President Bush….
“But even this ‘we’ve had Saddam on ice for months now’ nonsense pales behind the latest wackery from Howard Dean – who earlier this month gave credence to the notion that Bush not only knew in advance about 9/11, but deliberately allowed it to happen….Now, Democrats have been prone to this sort of conspiracy nonsense for a quarter-century, ever since Jimmy Carter loyalists declared that Ronald Reagan had persuaded Iran to keep its U.S. hostages in custody until after the 1980 election – and kept repeating the claim, even after it was thoroughly disproved.
“But when their leading presidential candidate tosses out the ‘theory’ that the president of the United States treasonously allowed thousands of Americans to be killed to drive up his poll numbers and justify a war, then a line has been crossed into very dangerous territory.”