Scapegoat
There are lots of things I don't agree with. Most of all, I really try to be rational in the face of highly charged, emotional issues. Why do I seem to be the only one who even gives a damn about trying?
This whole trial is a fucking sham. Remove yourself from the horror and magnitude of what happened and think about it. I know it's hard -- I was there folks -- but continuing down the blind reactionary course isn't going to solve a damn thing (we've seen that, haven't we?) But I digress. So consider this: the dude was in jail the day it happened. He has pledged allegiance to al-qaeda, but is he on trial for that? Nope. He says he knew of a plot, but didn't know when it was going to happen. Let's consider an analogue: if my buddy tells me he's gonna off his old lady and I don't do anything to stop it, I'm complicit. If a company ignores safety issues and people die as a result of their negligence (possibly willful negligence, as exposing a flaw would mean loss of profit) they are guilty of gross negligence. But do they get the death penalty? I would love for a legal scholar to tell me if this has ever happened in the course of documented legal history.
My point is this: we are placing the culpability for those 19 guys on the planes and those several guys in the desert (the most important of which, if you'll remember, our commander in chief isn't that concerned about) on this moron. They're going to parade family members of Semptember 11th victims up there, make them dig up their pain, and cry in front of those impressionable jurors, and once again turn our beloved justice system into a soap opera. Please -- spare me. Throw him in jail, or at least treat him in line with what he's been charged with. It sets a dangerous precedent when we bend the rules for bad guys; when do we start bedning them for people like you and me?
This whole trial is a fucking sham. Remove yourself from the horror and magnitude of what happened and think about it. I know it's hard -- I was there folks -- but continuing down the blind reactionary course isn't going to solve a damn thing (we've seen that, haven't we?) But I digress. So consider this: the dude was in jail the day it happened. He has pledged allegiance to al-qaeda, but is he on trial for that? Nope. He says he knew of a plot, but didn't know when it was going to happen. Let's consider an analogue: if my buddy tells me he's gonna off his old lady and I don't do anything to stop it, I'm complicit. If a company ignores safety issues and people die as a result of their negligence (possibly willful negligence, as exposing a flaw would mean loss of profit) they are guilty of gross negligence. But do they get the death penalty? I would love for a legal scholar to tell me if this has ever happened in the course of documented legal history.
My point is this: we are placing the culpability for those 19 guys on the planes and those several guys in the desert (the most important of which, if you'll remember, our commander in chief isn't that concerned about) on this moron. They're going to parade family members of Semptember 11th victims up there, make them dig up their pain, and cry in front of those impressionable jurors, and once again turn our beloved justice system into a soap opera. Please -- spare me. Throw him in jail, or at least treat him in line with what he's been charged with. It sets a dangerous precedent when we bend the rules for bad guys; when do we start bedning them for people like you and me?
posted by Dr. Duke Nukem, Ph.D. at
4/06/2006 09:29:00 AM
1 Comments:
"Spencer argued that the voices of the victims of the attacks and their anguished families should be all the jury needs to hear to decide whether Moussaoui, an acknowledged al-Qaida terrorist, should die for his crimes."
that's a textbook appeal to emotion. the prosecution apparently has no qualms about the (ir)rationality of the argument.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home