Newsweek: "Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars."
Then why exactly are we bothering to try them? Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't want anyone acquitted here, but what is the benefit of a show trial? What if they want to act as their own attorney? What hate speech will we have to listen to throughout the trial process?
Then why exactly are we bothering to try them? Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't want anyone acquitted here, but what is the benefit of a show trial? What if they want to act as their own attorney? What hate speech will we have to listen to throughout the trial process?
3 comments:
"What hate speech will we have to listen to throughout the trial process?"
What is hate speech? Speech that you don't agree with?
If you love and respect the 1st Amendment, you'll respect that it does not put forth a means of prohibiting the utterance of contrarian beliefs that those within earshot might find themselves subjected to.
There is clear and definite distinction between what someone probably ought not say and what someone, by threat of government force, should be mandated to say or not say.
As such, there is no such thing as hate speech. They are merely words which one hearing them may decide of their own volition as to how they wish to respond to them.
What I am saying is that we are giving KSM a soapbox to preach from for no good reason.
On that we most definitely agree.
Post a Comment