Monday, October 31, 2005
Dismantling the Justice System
I don't always agree with the New York Times, but today's editorial is spot on. Our government is setting about gutting basic rights and freedoms that have formed the fabric of our justice system since the beginning of our nation. This is going on largely unopposed. Either people don't care, don't know, or think, "it's not me they're coming after, so it's ok." At risk of quoting a poem that is so oft-quoted it is almost cliched... first they came for the jews and I was silent. Then they came for the catholics and I silent. Then they came for the gays and I was silent. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Today, the government is aiming at Muslims. No one is speaking up (except a few on the far-left). Tomorrow it will be Latinos (under the guise of attacking illegal immigration), will anyone speak up then? When they get to average Americans, who will be left to speak up?
According to the Times: "In a breathtaking afterthought at the close of debate, the House voted to triple the number of terrorism-related crimes carrying the death penalty. The House also voted to allow judges to reduce the size of juries that decide on executions, and even to permit prosecutors to try repeatedly for a death sentence when a hung jury fails to vote for death."
Again, people may say, so what, they are terrorists. But, as the editorial points out. "These would make it easier for prosecutors to win a death sentence in cases where a defendant had no intent to kill - for example, if a defendant gave financial support to an umbrella organization without realizing that some of its adherents might eventually commit violence."
As someone who sponsored an orphan through an organization that turned out to be siphoning off monies to fund jihadist campaigns, this is really scary. I had photos of the girl that my donations fed, clothed, and sent to school. I had letters from her, thanking my family for supporting her and wishing us happy holidays. Apparently, all this was accomplished for something less than the $30 a month I was paying. The rest of the money went to causes I neither support, nor knew about. But if the Times is correct, I could face a death sentence for my support of an overseas orphan! Scary indeed!!
Click here for the whole editorial. ¶ 8:39 AM
According to the Times: "In a breathtaking afterthought at the close of debate, the House voted to triple the number of terrorism-related crimes carrying the death penalty. The House also voted to allow judges to reduce the size of juries that decide on executions, and even to permit prosecutors to try repeatedly for a death sentence when a hung jury fails to vote for death."
Again, people may say, so what, they are terrorists. But, as the editorial points out. "These would make it easier for prosecutors to win a death sentence in cases where a defendant had no intent to kill - for example, if a defendant gave financial support to an umbrella organization without realizing that some of its adherents might eventually commit violence."
As someone who sponsored an orphan through an organization that turned out to be siphoning off monies to fund jihadist campaigns, this is really scary. I had photos of the girl that my donations fed, clothed, and sent to school. I had letters from her, thanking my family for supporting her and wishing us happy holidays. Apparently, all this was accomplished for something less than the $30 a month I was paying. The rest of the money went to causes I neither support, nor knew about. But if the Times is correct, I could face a death sentence for my support of an overseas orphan! Scary indeed!!
Click here for the whole editorial. ¶ 8:39 AM
