The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people.
"This is literally true: the Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement --we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It's the same fear they've been spewing for years. As always, the Right's tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it's hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.
"People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, andbrought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.
"It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials. As usual, it's the weakest and most frightened among us who rely on the most flamboyant,theatrical displays of "strength" and "courage" to hide what they really are. Then again, this is the same political movement whose "leaders" -- people like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts -- cowardly insisted that we must ignore the Constitution in order to stay alive: the exact antithesis of the core value on which the nation was founded. Given that, it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets."
The level on which these arguments really blow my mind is not necessarily in their cowardice per se, but rather the delusional beliefs that the cowardice rises out of. Namely, that all terrorists are The Joker. Stop taking films so seriously, Republicans! I mean, sure, we all loved The Dark Night (except if we didn't because of how proud it probably made Dick Cheney), but there is an important difference between movies and reality that Republican's parents woefully did not inform them of. In real life, terrorists do not typically allow federal institutions to arrest them in order to execute miraculously improbable escape plans that win them their freedom and allow them to enact even more atrocious acts of violence against unsuspecting civilians. Once they are behind bars, they pretty much just stay there. Unless they are innocent. In which case, they need a trial. And to ensure the fairness of that trial, it has to be public. Basic stuff, really. Someone should start an NGO called Educating Asshole Republicans on the Fundamental Understanding of Criminal Kases, EARFUCK for short.
Next up, Katha Pollitt discussing the betrayal that is the Stupak amendment in the Nation. In case you don't know, the Stupak amendment is an amendment snuck in at the last minute to the health care bill that just passed the house that makes it essentially illegal for health insurance companies to provide coverage on abortions.
"Elections have consequences, you say? Exactly: Obama, the prochoice, prowoman candidate, won. Stupak didn't put him in the White House, and neither did the Catholic bishops or the white antifeminist welfare staters of Beinart's imagination. We did. And we deserve better from Obama than sound bites like "this is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill." Abortion is healthcare. That's the whole point.
"What makes the Stupak fiasco especially pathetic is the fumbling response from prochoicers. Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill would not be in the Senate today were it not for prochoice and feminist supporters like EMILY's List. How does she thank us? By telling Joe Scarborough that Stupak isn't so bad, that it won't affect "the majority of America"--just low-income women--and that it's "an example of having to govern with moderates." So people who'll tip healthcare reform into the trash unless it blocks abortion access are the moderates now! (McCaskill took it back later that day, but the damage was done.) If I ever give that woman another dime, shoot me."
I really don't think much needs to be added to this very effective and succinct condemnation, except to say that it is appalling to see President Obama attempt to separate healthcare and abortion, and equally shocking to see this kind of disregard for women's health and safety in a political climate where so-called "liberals" are in complete control. Pathetic.
Finally, this:
she's a biter
ReplyDelete