Tag Archives: Islamic terrorism

legal news

Tsarnaev is going down

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should die for killing those people during the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, a federal court jury ruled today.

I know a lot of Americans are cheering the decision. I’m not one of them, but perhaps not for the usual reasons.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/boston-marathon-bomber-tsarnaev-sentenced-to-death-for-2013-attack/ar-BBjOydK

I oppose capital punishment on principle. I’ve noted that already on this blog and I stand by my belief.

However, if there ever was a case that challenged that principle, the Tsarnaev case stands out as a serious test. The testimony as I understand it was riveting in the extreme. The pictures of the victims, including the young boy who died in the blast, were gut-wrenching.

I don’t pity Tsarnaev in the least and my desire to see him live has nothing to do with wanting to spare his life because of some sense of grace. He needs to seek that himself, which he isĀ not likely to do.

Death for this young man, though, is going to be seen as a “victory.”Ā Tsarnaev’s perverted view of his Muslim faith means he’ll be welcomed into the after-life as a hero. Do we want that for him? Of course not.

I crueler fate would have been to lock the young man up in a super-max prison, keep him in solitary confinement for 23 hours every single day and let him ponder for the remainder of hisĀ time on Earth precisely what he did to those innocent victims.

As a non-Muslim, I do not want to give Tsarnaev the satisfaction of obtaining that so-called “victory” by sticking a needle in his arm and watching him die.

The death sentence means a probable lengthy appeals process. Civil liberties groups will intervene on his behalf. Perhaps his legal team will think it can get the death sentence reversed. Every court hearing is going to dredge up more misery for the loved ones of those who died and for the victims who were injured — some of them grievously — by the terrorists’ blast. They do not deserve the endure more pain.

Then again, perhaps Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will waive his appeals and await his fate.

Whatever. If we want to punish this man to the hilt, he would suffer more by rotting in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

 

International news

Brooks, Shields speak with reason, clarity

If only conservatives and liberals could speak to each other the way these two fellows speak on subjects that have driven the ideologies so far apart.

If only …

David Brooks is a conservative columnist for the New York Times; Mark Shields’s left-leaning column is circulated in newspapers all across the country.

They took on the issue of what to call the terrorists with whom we are at war.

I particularly liked Brooks’s assessment of whether the monsters are “Islamic terrorists.” His view? All religion is open to interpretation. Christians, Jews and Muslims all interpret their faiths differently. He said the terrorists don’t practice mainstream Islam, but they’re Islamic, so why not call them such?

I don’t necessarily think it’s important that we call these terrorists Islamic. We know what they’re doing. As Shields noted, most of the Islamic State’s victims are Muslims. They’re also killing Christians and Jews. They’re evil in the extreme and we need to respond accordingly — which we are doing.

But the discussion on PBS is worth seeing anyway.

If only the two sides could talk to each other the way these fellows do.

 

International news

House speaker mounts lame defense

John Boehner must be fantasizing about being president of the United States.

Why else would the speaker of the House of Representatives take it upon himself to buck long-standing diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign head of government to speak to Congress without consulting first with the White House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/john-boehner-defends-netanyahu-invitation-115212.html?hp=c2_3

The speaker has defended his invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, saying he didn’t tell the White House because he didn’t want any interference from President Obama, who he thinks might seek to derail the invitation.

Such so-called “logic” simply dodges the real issue, which is whether it is appropriate for a legislative leader to go behind the back of the nation’s head of state — the president — in inviting a foreign dignitary to make a public speech before a joint congressional session.

To my way of thinking — and others as well — the speaker broke a long-held rule of diplomatic decorum.

And why? Because of some so-called tension between the president and the prime minister.

ā€œThereā€™s so secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu,ā€ the Ohio Republican said. ā€œI, frankly, didnā€™t want that getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.ā€

The “real opportunity,” according to Boehner, would be for Netanyahu to argue for stronger sanctions against Iran while the Islamic Republic is in the middle of nuclear disarmament negotiations with the State Department and other foreign governments. Barack Obama doesn’t want to impose any new sanctions while the negotiations are under way.

I agree totally with Boehner that Netanyahu is the “perfect person” to talk about radical Islamic terrorism and about the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That’s as far as Netanyahu should go, however, when he stands before a joint congressional session.

To lobby publicly for the increased sanctions now undercuts the president — which is another breach of decorum that Boehner has committed.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve got just one president at a time.

And, sir, it isn’t you.