SINS OF THE FATHER (IN-LAW)

On March 26,  2014, the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden was "swiftly" convicted of "conspiracy to murder Americans" in a New York federal courtroom.  He was bin Laden's spokesman and had reportedly taken joy in the killing of Americans.

So, there is no question that we may easily consider him a despicable person.

But, the NY Times article did not exactly spell out HOW he had made a concrete, positive contribution prior to the actual killing of Americans as opposed to just talking nasty about it after the fact.

I guess I am about the only scum-sucking "Commie pinko" who is concerned that MAYBE an American judge let a jury "railroad" someone just for merely talking badly.  An article in a prior edition of the newspaper reported that prosecutors had made a lot of closing argument about what the son-in-law was SAYING but never mentioned anything that he actually DID to further the conspiracy.

Should it be a crime in the US for just talking badly?  Does any possible exemption apply only to American citizens, so those in other countries better watch their mouths?  Maybe we should start rounding up the in-laws of all those who are suspected of committing crimes and lock them up or shoot them in the back of the head, just in case.

After all, we have to preserve the image that we are the big, bad-assed Americans with large testicles who can kick anybody's ass we want, any time we want!  Teach 'em some R-E-S-P-E-C-T!

Any patriotic American who values the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech ought to be concerned about the outcome of this case.  It is easy to defend the rights of those with whom we agree, but do not the reprehensibly bad people also have rights worth defending?  Do we really want to invest the President and the Justice Department and the armed forces with the summary power to determine which statements get approved and which get criminalized?  And punished?

Defenders of Barack Obama are exultant that Abu Ghaith was convicted in a CIVILIAN court since so many war-mongers and thugs have previously rattled their sabers for summary kangaroo-court justice for these folks in "military tribunals," where pesky "legal technicalities" don't get in the way of convictions!  Obama's critics have fretted that there just might be too many acquittals of those scum in civilian courts, so Obama's supporters are giddy with delight demonstrating that summary "justice" can be achieved in civilian courts, too!  "Look, Ma!  Liberal puke Democrats have testicles, too!"

It is the exact same attitude that praised Barack Obama (to the teeth-gritting consternation of Republicans) for having directed the SEALs to grab Osama bin Laden, summarily execute him, then dump his body at sea so no pointless autopsy could be performed that MIGHT have shown that bin Laden, unarmed and in restraints, was executed with a bullet in the back of the head while kneeling down in his pajamas.  Who knows?  Who cares?  

We know, however, by the government's own murky statements, that bin Laden was captured and killed, in his pajamas, unarmed, without any arrest warrant or warrant of execution being issued by a proper court.  We know that bin Laden, though PROBABLY guilty, was never actually convicted of any crime in a US court of law.  If we all believe bin Laden was guilty (as I do), then why bother with a trial?  Problem is, most of us with an opinion know ONLY what we've been told.  Most of us have no first-hand knowledge.  Just foaming-at-the-mouth outrage about "9/11."

Does it really matter what the "legal technicalities" are if we don't have the legal certainty of a proper procedural conviction of someone who was "probably" guilty?

I know what my answer to those questions are, and I don't like any of this one bit.  It is worthy of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, or a lynch mob!  The US court system is certainly not perfect, but it is a lot better than summary execution by government stooges who have declared someone to be the universally despised bệte noir of our existence.  So, we need not worry our pretty little heads with that old bromide about being tried by a jury of one's "peers."

It's so easy to just be a good "German" and do what is expected and not rock the boat.