Go read Glenn Greenwald. Hilarious.
Reader Interactions
22Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.
We’re not going back!
Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.
Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.
This really is a full service blog.
Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.
You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.
“Squeaker” McCarthy
Republicans don’t trust women.
Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?
A consequence of cucumbers
DeSantis transforms Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.
No one could have predicted…
People are complicated. Love is not.
When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?
Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?
Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.
Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.
There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.
In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.
A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals
I’m sure you banged some questionable people yourself.
It’s a doggy dog world.
If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.
Pb
Too funny. :)
Keith
I can’t wait to read her update in an attempt to rationalize the apparent hypocrisy. It reminds me a bit of an ep of Hannity & Colmes where Hannity was railing about how the Duke players are innocent until proven guilty, and then he follows the segment with one about how Joran Van Der Sloot should thrown in jail for rape/murder.
Pb
Yeah, but Joran Van Der Sloot is Dutch!
Hyperion
could this be the “root cause” of the Christians’ actions?
Richard Bottoms
The question isn’t, are Republicans insane.
It’s why did it take you folks who keep voting for these idiots so long to notice.
I sincerely hope we bury you in November.
Mac Buckets
Ridiculous. Nobody’s pro-terrorist in this case except the Indonesian courts. Come on, these three Christians are likely just patsies to make up the numbers to balance out the three convicted Bali bombers. If you want to take the Muslim government’s word for their actions, and ignore what civilized people have said about the trial and the five-year-long Poso conflict (started by Muslims, aided by the Muslim government, perpetuated by Muslims, all to deny Christians their rightful political power — and the Muslims who burned villages and beheaded schoolgirls get amnesty while three — what a coincidence, the same number as Bali bombers! — Christians get executed?), then you do not possess a terribly keen intellect.
To call these men terrorists because that’s what the Muslims call them is to legitimize all the crazy epithets that Muslim radicals throw at Christians and Westerners. Are you sure you wnat to do that?
So although I’m sure you thought it was clever, you should change the title of this post.
Mr Furious
Whatever, Mac. Semantics of “who’s the terrorist?” aside, this case perfectly illustrates the problem with the way Bush wants to handle and prosecute detainees. And perfectly highlights the hypocrisy of Malkin (and others, likely to include yourself) who support a U.S. version of a kangaroo court with sham verdicts and sentences.
Lindsay Graham laid it out perfectly on Sunday, and it’s fortuitous that a real-life example is unfolding before our eyes.
ChristieS
Mac, the men may indeed need new trials. I don’t know. What I can observe myself however is that Malkin needs to decide whether she wants to be the pot or the kettle today.
Irony, a delicious dish when served with a side of hypocrisy. Malkin is a fine chef.
craigie
The only real problem with enjoying this episode is that Malkin is so demonstrably barking mad, that there is no point in taking anything she says seriously. It’s like seeing a homeless person shouting into traffic about how bad Bush is – the homeless guy may have a point, but nobody is listening.
Tsulagi
Lobotomies are required for the retardocon elite like Michelle. But I’m curious, is it written that they have to get touch ups if any synapses start to fire again? Or is it just understood that the faithful cheerfully do so?
Andrew
Shorter Mac:
Muslim = terrorist.
Mac Buckets
Semantics? Yeah, like the OJ trial: “The semantics of who’s a murderer aside…” Those “semantics,” as you quaintly call them, are the beginning and end of this case. You cannot put them aside, nor should Tim have titled this post after such an obviously scurrilous charge.
Irrational equivalences aside… there is a bit of a point to be made in that regards, but only a bit. Of course, to hold Indonesia’s system and ours as anything approaching equally flawed, you’d have to ignore an awful lot of recent history.
BlogReeder
You have to remember that the Guantanamo Detainees are the ones going after YOU. This is a case where a bleeding heart can get you killed. I think some caution is appropriate.
Mac Buckets
I think they are all innocent wedding guests who just were at the wrong Taliban battlefield or Al Qaeda training ground at the wrong time!
Kimmitt
Mm . . . psychosis on display.
Pb
Ah yes–locked up and held without charge = presumed guilty. In that case, why bother holding trials or tribunals at all?
BlogReeder
Presumed guilty is right. But they’re going to start the tribunals soon, Aren’t they? That’ll surely make everyone happy all around.
Beej
Mac wants to argue that if they’re REALLY terrorists, then it’s ok to detain them without trial, torture to gain information, etc. And therein lies the problem. Once a nation accepts something other than the rule of law, (such as expediency, intolerance, or fear) as it’s guiding principle, the whole thing starts to fall apart. You want a FAIR trial, Mac? Ok, I agree with you. So let’s have some for those guys at Guantanamo. What have we got to lose? Time? They’ve already been there long enough to have conducted umpteen trials.
Now you might say that the rule of law depends upon whether your laws are fair and just. OK, I agree with that too. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t matter how fair and just your laws are if you can just throw them out the window whenever it seems expedient.
Is there some equivalence between Indonesian law and U.S. law? I have no idea. But, you see, that is not the problem. The problem is that this administration is NOT following the rule of law HERE. And apparently that’s ok with Michelle Malkin and a lot of other people. So much for the rule of law.
Jess
Mac,
Could you explain the principle you’re defending more clearly please? Are you saying that everyone–even people suspected of terrorism–should have a fair trial? How is that different from the terrorist-loving, bleeding heart liberal position that the wingnuts have been so critical of?
Or maybe you aren’t talking about principles here, since principles are what one applies to all situations fairly rather than opportunistically. Or perhaps you really are so clueless that you think liberals want Christians accused of terrorism to be denied a fair trial. Please clarify. And make an effort to be rational.
Andrew
Guys, it’s pretty easy to understand Mac’s philosophy:
If the suspect is brown or has crazy hair like Richard Reed), then they are immediately presumed terroristy.
If they are white (or REALLY Christian, like Benny Hinn) then they should spend at least a day or two in lockup before eing deported to Syria for torture.
BlogReeder
Or maybe you aren’t talking about principles here, since principles are what one applies to all situations fairly rather than opportunistically
There is also the matter of responsibility. Security sometimes trumps fairness.
Jess
I have yet to hear a coherent argument explaining how the denial of due process leads to greater security. All criminal activity is a threat to security–which is why we label it criminal and try to control it–and yet we’re supposed to give up one of our most crucial protections against corrupt power for this one example of criminal activity? Be reasonable.