« Pentecostal Boys Aren't Like Holden Caulfield, Part 16 | Main | To Catch a (Faith) Predator »

January 08, 2010

Comments

Zossima

That argument is just stupid on its face. The trials weren't away from Europe, where the war happened. The trials weren't away from the Jews, gays, gypsies, and other victims of the war!

Lance Schmitz

Thanks for this Greg

dr dobson

Oh dear Jesus, guvnuh. I am adrift in a sea on illogical references and more-than-misguided political principles. On the one hand, She-guv-to-be is using the Bushian argument of "not on my soil", mixed together with the (and no minimization of the evil act of 1995 intended here) "please don't forget OUR terrorist attack" mentality that many Oklahoma politicians still exhibit nationally.

Having spent more than my fair share of time in NYC (we used to have an office (but have now moved to midtown) literally a sunflower seed's spit-ride away from Ground Zero and was severely damaged in the attacks) and in OKC, I can unequivocally state that the OKC Murrah bombing attack IN NO WAY equates to what happened at ground zero and Fallin should be completely lambasted for even trying to equate them. McVeigh and Nicholls and their helpers (I guess we're still on the prowl for the third guy) did not intend to absolutely gore the very existence of freedom; they wanted to make a statement against their own government. They succeeded far beyond what their ideologies intended. The fuckers who rammed the twin towers intended to topple our very culture--they, too, succeeded in ways far beyond what they envisioned.

Fallin is trying to equate a neighborhood flood to that of Hurricane Katrina--don't go there as the two are not related. I don't at all intend to minimize what happened in OKC in 1995, but hopefully you see my point.

Fallin goes on to argue that by holding the trials "locally", we will have allowed the terrorists a larger stage. Excuse me, merely covering their shit gives them the stage they are looking for, not to mention making them the front-and-center focus of your freaking lame speech.

I'm also laughing at her misguided use of the phrase "couldn't get justice" in the military courts when referring to McVeigh and Nicholls. Was it that such courts were/are incapable of providing an impartial forum, or is it that justice just couldn't be imparted in a military setting? Actually, it's neither; military courts do not have jurisdiction over civilian matters, full stop. This is what she means to say, but falls woefully short of doing so (and thus misleading countless minions within her Palin-esque following). I also like how she stopped conveniently short of reminding us how little "justice" was actually served to the people of Oklahoma by the lovely Wes Lane coming home without Nicholls's scalp (read: death sentence).

I think she should change her name to Mary "Pallin". She's closer to our other favorite guvnuh than she realizes.

Does Pallin still have that sweet school secretary hair?

Mike

Greg, you correctly pointed out the weaknesses in Mary Fallon's speech, yet your counter-arguments are not much better.

The context of your reply suggests that military tribunals are not "trials" and therefore not a form of justice.

You also seem to believe that enemy combatants who are not US citizens are entitled to the same Constitutional rights as US citizens who are processed through our criminal justice system.

I believe you are dead wrong on both counts.

I also got a chuckle out of the "legal process" argument. Tell me Greg, what are the chances of KSM being released if he is acquitted? For that matter, what are the chances of him being acquitted? If it is a foregone conclusion that KSM will be found guilty (as AG Holder and the Obama White House have both hinted) then this is nothing more than a show trial. Is that what passes for "justice" and "legal process" on the Left these days?

On the other hand, you may have a point about female governors. Janet Napolitano was the governor of Arizona before being hand-picked to lead the best and brightest, smartest, most ethical Department of Homeland Security ever. How's that working out?

dr dobson

Mike--my two cents worth in answering your query related to the chances of KSM being "released if he is acquitted" are to say that I certainly believe, if acquitted, that any defendant in a criminal case should, must and will be released without question. What country do you think this is, the People Republic of China?

As to the WH feigning a trial, I also hope that isn't true. While we don't always hit the mark, we certainly have a good thing going in this country by way of criminal jurisprudence. Yes, there are flaws, but at least the sense of a fair and impartial trial is one of the foundations of this great country. Whenever the highest office in the land hints at anything to the contrary, we can only hope and pray that we aren't next.

Greg Horton

Mike, a people's values are reflected in the degree to which they are willing to make those values available to others. If they don't, they're liars.

sidekicker

well put, Greg.

The comments to this entry are closed.