Osama bin Laden: Not Guilty? That’s what The Washington Times is wondering in the wake of a New York jury’s acquittal of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. More Times analysis is here.
Compare this to our Times here in New York, and their jubilant response to the verdict.
Times pundit Linda Greenhouse says criticism of this trial “reflects a profound failure of imagination,” whatever that means. “That is what we call getting the job done,” says an NYT editorial. Sure, if the job was to find a terrorist .003% guilty.
Fortunately at least one New York newspaper seems to get it...
Now more than ever, beware of the liberals’ good ideas.
After all, Nancy Pelosi thinks her reign as House Speaker was a “job well done.”
The liberals in Washington think their takeover of GM is a “success story.” The Heritage Foundation explains why that’s not the case.
And the Washington liberals also think raising taxes on a large number of working Americans and small businesses would be an economic success story...
What do you want Congress to do – or NOT do – on the soon-to-expire tax cuts that President Bush signed into law in 2001 and 2003? Vote today in our Weekly Poll.
The best idea I have right now is to enjoy the weekend and the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday – and I hope you’ll do the same!
Friday, November 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've been a conservative all my life. Besides taking responsibility for my actions, standing on my own two feet, etc., it includes respect for life and honoring The Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIf you buy into the wonderful institution the Founding Fathers created for us with the Constitution, you don't "pick and choose" what you believe and what you don't. The US court system was NOT created to rubber stamp convictions. It was created to secure justice. If the Bush administration broke the Geneva convention and US law in torturing confessions out of defendants then the blame lies with Bush, and the confessions are not admissible in our courts - for good reason. If justice department lawyers didn't have a good enough case against this man to obtain a conviction without tainted evidence, then they shouldn't have brought the case.
You want to overturn the jury's ruling? Then maybe the next time YOU sit before a judge and jury we should allow forced confessions or tainted evidence!
As I said, you either respect our law or your don't. That's a CONSERVATIVE view, not what Rush Limbaugh advocates.