February 23, 2010
Hypocritical, Nah...
I've been watching the political cartoons over the past few days with some interest. Between the smarmy whacks at Gen. Haig after his death to today's shots at Vice-President Cheney after his heart attack I've noticed that there seems to be an abundance of "artists" who have no qualms about attacking someone who has either just died or has had a major health emergency. The funniest part of this is that these are some of the same people who were completely aghast when people had something untoward to say about Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick after the late senator's death. Well I'm going to put my two cents in on this one. Deb Milbraith, I hope that you never have a major medical crisis in your life that someone decides to deride you about. MStreeter and Scott Santis, I hope that neither of you have ever done anything that you regret before you meet St. Peter. Then again none of you is a conservative so you probably won't have those types of worries, just those that go with answering the questions at the pearly gates.
December 02, 2009
Enemy Camp?
I am utterly disgusted with the supposed news organization known as MSNBC. Last night after the President attempted to sell his latest version of how to handle the Afghanistan war Chris Matthews had the temerity to call West Point the "enemy camp."
Now I realize that the closest Mr. Matthews has come to a member of the military, at least in his adult life, was when he watched one of the Clinton parades but this is way overboard. I know that nothing will be accomplished by contacting MSNBC and I know that nothing would be accomplished by contacting Mr. Matthews himself, but perhaps it is time for right minded individuals to watch his show for a night or two and put together a list of his advertisers. I'm sure that if enough of us were to get together and email them the link to his comments one or two of them might rethink sponsoring his show.
Now I realize that the closest Mr. Matthews has come to a member of the military, at least in his adult life, was when he watched one of the Clinton parades but this is way overboard. I know that nothing will be accomplished by contacting MSNBC and I know that nothing would be accomplished by contacting Mr. Matthews himself, but perhaps it is time for right minded individuals to watch his show for a night or two and put together a list of his advertisers. I'm sure that if enough of us were to get together and email them the link to his comments one or two of them might rethink sponsoring his show.
November 18, 2009
Have they lost their minds?
Earlier today I listened to Attorney General Holder's opening remarks during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr Holder was absolutely eloquent in his explanation of how he came to the decision to bring the 9/11 conspirators to trial in New York City. "These are cases that have to be won," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid, either. I know we are at war. We need not cower in the face of the enemy. No more delay. It is past time to finally act."
The problem comes in comparing bringing these conspirators to trial in a civilian court with bringing the Blind Sheik to trial after the 1993 WTC bombings. In 1993 the case was handled, soup to nuts, as a criminal matter. That includes rules of evidence and the proper handling of the purported criminals.
From the start of the search for the 9/11 conspirators it was handled as a military effort with different rules of evidence and no requirement to mirandize any suspects. Since things were handled so differently how can we not be concerned that vital evidence, collected in appropriate method by the military, will not be tossed out on a technicality? The proper way to handle these individuals at this point is using a military tribunal, who's rules of evidence have been followed as well as their rules for handling these war criminals. To do any less is to chance their release on a technicality that no one wants to see, or do they? There is a difference, Mr. Holder, between cowering and being concerned by someone acting irresponsibly. Especially when they hold your family's safety in their hands.
The problem comes in comparing bringing these conspirators to trial in a civilian court with bringing the Blind Sheik to trial after the 1993 WTC bombings. In 1993 the case was handled, soup to nuts, as a criminal matter. That includes rules of evidence and the proper handling of the purported criminals.
From the start of the search for the 9/11 conspirators it was handled as a military effort with different rules of evidence and no requirement to mirandize any suspects. Since things were handled so differently how can we not be concerned that vital evidence, collected in appropriate method by the military, will not be tossed out on a technicality? The proper way to handle these individuals at this point is using a military tribunal, who's rules of evidence have been followed as well as their rules for handling these war criminals. To do any less is to chance their release on a technicality that no one wants to see, or do they? There is a difference, Mr. Holder, between cowering and being concerned by someone acting irresponsibly. Especially when they hold your family's safety in their hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
