Thursday, May 11, 2006

Thought Crime


I always felt that there was one hell of a lot of things wrong with the charges against Zacarias Moussaoui. I simply couldn't nail it down. It reminded me of Charles Manson. How he's always referred to as "mass murderer Charles Manson" when in fact he murdered no one at the Tate or LaBianca homes. Manson was convicted, rightly so, of conspiracy to commit murder. He picked the targets, ordered the murders, and was present at the LaBianca crime scene. Charlie deserves to be in prison, but he's not a mass murderer. He is a conspirator. Susan Atkins, Tex Watson and Leslie Van Houten are mass murderers.

Whoever was responsible for flying the planes into the buildings on September 11th is responsible for mass murder. Moussaoui wasn't there. He was already in jail. Was he one of the so-called maybe "20th hijackers"? Or is he an angry man with a great deal of mental problems? History shows that sort of person makes a perfect patsy.

Ted Rall brings it on home:


  • At 7:37 PM, Anonymous JMF said…

    Robert: It's a truly excellent, scathing critique, and your title sums it up quite well. For whatever Moussaoui may have thought, he indeed didn't *do* anything. (And there is certainly ample basis for grave doubts regarding whether he really even *knew* anything.) But once again, American "justice" has sought out a sacrificial lamb --appropriate or otherwise -- and delivered unto him a stunning sentence of life imprisonment for mere political inklings in opposition to the status quo . Which makes me wonder: Who is more the "terrorist" here? Justice perverted to serve base political ends is no justice at all. ==== But sadly, that's the way it is anymore here in the "land of the free". Lynn Stewart was also convicted, merely for being a dedicated attorney on behalf of the "wrong" [alleged "terrorist"] client. And Mrs. Burlingame would do better to join in the 9/11 Truth movement and seek real answers, rather than merely transfer her anger and grief to a wholly symbolic target who played no actual part in the events of that day. Sad. Our national level of "civiization" becomes more dubious every day.

  • At 5:10 AM, Blogger Again said…

    Lynn Stewart was also convicted, merely for being a dedicated attorney

    that's just a small piece of the puzzle - want to grow pale?

    Bush bypasses hundreds of laws

    "This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. "There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

    unlimited executive power?

    "the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government"

  • At 1:16 PM, Anonymous JMF said…

    Again: I've seen the Charlie Savage piece (and watched its various underpinnings evolve over time). And the situation is absolutely Totalitarian, as you say. This utter nonsense about "constitutional authority" being bandied about by the president's numerous toadies is horseshit, plain and simple -- Ronald Reagan sought exactly such "signing statement" discretion via the pursuit of the "Line-Item Veto", which was rightly and thoroughly rejected by Congress as far too draconian an authority to grant the Executive Branch. That legislative move, in my mind, represents a clear, *binding* precedent which the Bush junta has simply, "conveniently" ignored, like so many others (including the enactment of the FISA laws, which effectively closed *that* loophole permanently.). It's not "freedom" that's on the march in this country, only *tyranny* and utter contempt for Constitutional freedom.

  • At 3:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I love your website. It has a lot of great pictures and is very informative.


Post a Comment

<< Home