Editor wars
The McLoughlin Post socks it to The New York Times -
BAM!
(And it feels sooo good)
Editorializing on the need for fair trials for six terrorist
suspects due to be tried by kangaroo military court at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, (Unnecessary Harm editorial,
NYT, 13/02/08), the New York Times opined, not that it
would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice - no - but
that it would alienate our partners in the world, and would
make any verdict "seem" unjust.
Even when the NYT acknowledges, 'the Kafkaesque fact
that even if the defendants were to somehow beat the
charges, they would not be set free. They would simply
go back to being detainees in Guantanamo' - they end by
writing that this would 'seem' unjust.
With an impressive wave of an imperially sanguine wrist,
The New York Times points off in the general direction
toward the trials of Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla
'and others', for examples of fair trials in open court.
(Note: Interesting site discusses Padilla, here.)
NYT: 'Those trials protected the constitutional rights of the
defendants, which protects the constitutional rights of
every American. And, in the cases of Mr. Moussaoui and
Mr. Padilla, resulted in convictions and long prison
sentences that had credibility that verdicts in these current
cases are sure to lack.'
Are you out of your minds?! The convictions for
Moussaoui and Padilla were credible?! Their
constitutional rights were protected?! Come on! We're
talking Hitler/Stalin/name-your-tyrant type totalitarian
despotism, here.
Picked up, locked up, no charges, no representation -
and tortured until, in the latter's case, Padilla's mind was
BROKEN.
HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. AND SO WHAT? WE
ARE ALL CITIZENS OF THIS WORLD.
The people who say hang 'em high cannot mean to
suggest we hang high anybody passing by - whether we
know they are guilty of anything or not.
And the only way we will know we are hanging a guilty
man or woman who deserves it is if...
- they get their day in open court;
- where we all get to hear all the evidence against them;
- where they are given every opportunity to launch a full
and energetic defense.
You hang anybody high without these clearly laid out
Constitutional stipulations, then YOU ARE HANGING
INNOCENT PEOPLE.
In point of fact, security services are destroying people
because of their political views; because of their
particular race or religion. Witch hunts.
It ends with hanging people. It begins with McCarthyism
notions of policing thought.
Again. The NYT has been, and is guilty of, not telling the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why did
9/11 happen? American murderous foreign policy - bin
Laden cited the murder, by us, of hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi children.
The NYT let it slide. They let Americans, particularly New
Yorkers, accept as fact the delusion that 9/11 was
because they hate us for our freedoms.
Because of their cowardice in not facing the people and
telling them the truth, they witness for themselves with
alarm now, the disintegration of freedom, as the corrupt
American leadership of both parties clings to power by
lies, deception and the destruction of Constitutional
protections. Otherwise, we'd have a very different class
up on charges, of treason, if they lose control and the truth
gets out.
If the NYT wants to be a real news paper again - I know I
want them to take up the reins of leadership, I keep
hoping - there is only one place to begin and that is, with
the truth.
To start, tell your readership about the huge prison
holding facilities being constructed quietly here at home.
What are they for? Find out. Then tell us about it. For the
New York Times I have been for many years, and remain,
all ears.
home: www.mcloughlinpost.com
|
|
