Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The (abandoned) Rule of Law...

Greetings good citizen,

As usual, yesteday provided a veritable Bonanza of evidence regarding both the moral and physical collapse of our civilization. Today we only have a a recycled piece from yesterday

As the Atlantic inquiry observes, “The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.” That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama.

The authors quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who told German TV that the U.S. raid was ‘quite clearly a violation of international law’ and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial.” Contrasting Schmidt with US Attorney General Eric Holder, who “defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn't pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel on Tuesday that the assault had been ‘lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.”

Like a lot of things in life, people have a problem with ‘due process’, they are all too willing to deny it to those painted as monsters by the Corporate owned media and equally as quick to demand it when the spotlight shines on them.

This is why due process exists in the first place, (not that it can’t be ‘gamed’, in fact they do it all the time, which is why I’m down on ‘judges’.)

Like the improbable label ‘expert’, nobody is qualified to sit in judgement of anyone else.

Juries do not judge the accused, they loan the court their ‘moral compass’ which is used to ‘weigh’ the context and legitimacy of the act in question.

Is the law a ‘slippery slope?’

Only when you have to defend yourself or your actions does it become ‘complicated’, we seem completely at ease when it comes to deciding the rightness or wrongness of another’s actions.

So, should they have ‘executed’ Osama?

Let’s take a walk down memory lane and ask the same question of Adolph Hitler.

Most will agree Herr Hitler was a ‘beast’ when it came to human rights. Should he have been ‘summarily executed’ upon his capture or should he have been granted the same, er, ‘rights’ other members of The Third Reich received?

Hell, we even gave Saddam his day in court…(a kangaroo court) but he got his day in court all the same.

Which is to point out that ‘going through the motions’ doesn’t mean ‘justice’ was served by any stretch of the imagination.

The issue here is NOT for us to decide whether or not Osama deserved to die, none of us is qualified to make that judgement.

What you are being asked here, good citizen is the straightforward question of whether or not you think our ‘justice system’ is broken?

Oh, and P.S. by the way, it is only in pieces like this one that you are asked such questions. Those who make decisions in your name without ever consulting you would sooner take cyanide than ask for your ‘approval’ of their job performance.

Does this matter? Why bring it up if it is meaningless?

Most of you are aware that ‘equal treatment under the law’ is the glue that holds our society together.

So what does it mean when we witness these, er, superjudicial events that make a mockery of that concept?

I know most of you ‘don’t give a fuck’, you’ve got bigger problems to deal with.

It’s one of those ‘frog in the pot of cool water’ problems. It’s not an issue until some asshole decides to put the pot on top of the fire.

Understand, if they don’t do their job properly under ‘normal’ circumstances then they can’t be relied upon to suddenly do it ‘by the book’ the moment you get swept up into the system.

Perhaps more disturbing is to witness top officials claim that the ‘hit’ on Bin Laden was both ‘legitimate’ and perfectly legal.

Um, one of the issues that inevitably surfaces under these circumstances is just how far do US laws extend? Do they extend beyond the borders of the US and do they apply to foreign nationals?

Which is beside the point if the perpetrator/actor is in the US (at the time) and under the jurisdiction of US law.

Understand that this little drama would not have happened if it weren’t first sanctioned by (as it turns out) the President hisself.

(Please forgive my bizarre ‘wit’, I know ‘hisself’ is a misspelling of the pronoun himself.)

Talk about your ‘slippery slope’, just where does a president’s ‘power’ end?

An even more perplexing problem if we take the ‘puppet government’ issue into consideration, (meaning the man making the decision is really just ‘following orders’.)

But, as you know, I digress…

Hell, it wouldn’t be one of my posts if it didn’t go screaming like a liquored up warrior straight off the reservation!

Disturbing BUT it is what it is.

For your consideration is the danger this presents for you and yours good citizen.

The time to act is BEFORE you have been condemned to 30 years hard labor…(for violating the fucking seat belt law!)

Thanks for letting me inside your head,


No comments:

Post a Comment