January 27, 2006

Non-Scandal Scandal #3450834

Duh.

Look, maybe it's the 14,084 Ann Rule type crime books I've read, or the 105,799,409,849 newspaper recorded accounts of criminal investigations I've seen, but detaining family members of suspects is unremarkably routine in our own country.

So the wives of terrorists are being taken in and held for questioning.

This is remarkable? This is a story? This is somehow different from Ted Bundy's girlfriend being subjected to hours upon hours of interrogation? No, a wife cannot be compelled to testify in court against her husband, but that doesn't mean they aren't held for questioning in the course of an investigation.

Yet, suddenly, in the middle of a war, the bar gets raised, when it should be lowered. These women talked about in the article hitched their wagons to terrorists. They aid, abet, and support the slaughter of innocent people.

The media expects us to weep for them?

But this is the money line. The part of the story that lit the match under my scrotum:

The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

What the f*** is a U.S. court doing ordering the f***ing Pentagon to release documents related to anything anywhere when we are in the middle of a war?

Since when is the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union privy to what our military is doing with prisoners who are not American citizens and not residing in this country and who are our enemies doing everything they can to kill as many Americans as possible?

When one of our military members, or civilian hostages, or workers over there dies in an IED explosion, isn't that the ultimate violation of their American civil liberties?

I was born in 1967. Stories like this make me wish I had been born in 1907. If this were 1946, and I were the age I am now, I wouldn't have 30 yards of duct tape wrapped around my head to keep it from exploding when I read news of the war.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:15 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

1 unbe-effin-lieveable!

i'll betchya a buck that the judge was appointed by carter or clinton!

Posted by: reliapundit at January 27, 2006 11:47 PM (dUpW1)

2 I don't know who wrote this story, but if you look at most of the stories coming out Iraq from the wire services, they're being written by people with names like Mohammed and Mahmoud.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 28, 2006 01:58 AM (RHG+K)

3 It's just another attempt to provoke outrage from the dummies who never had a thought someone else didn't plant in their head. A dummy who wouldn't think twice about a family member of Bundy being questioned, but unless you tell them this, it won't occur to them. Until they figure it out (IF they figure it out) they'll tell two dummies, and then they'll tell two dummies and the next thing you know - a whole bunch of dummies are marching down the streets with poorly worded and misspelled signs raging against the machine and flashing their private parts.

Did I miss anything?

Posted by: Oyster at January 28, 2006 05:28 AM (YudAC)

4 The Pentagon should offer to imbed ACLU lawyers in their frontline units. They can be advance teams to advise the enemy of their rights.

Better yet, why not imbed one in each cell so that they can monitor that the military is not torturing anyone.

ACLU - The Legal Arm of the Insurgency

"No ACLU in My Name!"

Posted by: Fred Fry at January 28, 2006 08:15 AM (HJnrm)

5 I was unable to find out whether this was a Democratic appointee. However I think that this was decided in the Supreme Court. I would find it unusual if the executive branch did not appeal it to the highest level. The Constitution and the separation of powers is what allows the judicial branch to oversee both the executive branch and the legislative branch. Only 2 of the current 9 Supremes have been appointed by Democrats. Here is a usgovinfo link with some more info about the supreme court and the constitution. This whole link is sorta interesting it appears to be a usgov link but is actually not "official". http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm

Posted by: john ryan at January 28, 2006 01:31 PM (TcoRJ)

6 The thing about propaganda in a free society is that it usually only gets through to the stupidest people in society. Coincidentally, these people tend to vote democrat. Go figure.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 29, 2006 09:48 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
32kb generated in CPU 0.014, elapsed 0.0463 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0381 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.