Posted on 06/20/2006 1:13:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I did not hear that much detail of his comments. The very tone of the one comment from him that I did see, suggested to me that he either did not have a rational view of the situation or that he was denying many facts and lacked intelligence in his assessment of the situation.
But we have, since the days of 9/11 and the Jersey girls, replaced peoples' emotions with everything else as far as granting them moral justification for their views. If they have any degree of being some sort of "aggrieved" party, then by God their view on any related matter must be morally superior to anyone else. Or so our current public opinion seems to say.
Actually, I saw this beginning before 9/11, when judges started accepting end-of-trial statements from family members of victims as non-evidentiary "testimony" before the guilty person was sentenced. From my reading, the idea that the emotions of the family members of the victims is relevant to the sentence is totally foreign to the hisotry of our nations' legal-philosophy. Guilt is guilt, and the sentencing of the guilty is supposed to deal with the severity of the crime and not the severity of the emotions of those afffected by the crime. The idea that justice is blind is supposed to work both ways - justice is supposed to be dispassionate, by design.
Well, from the dictates of the "results" oriented approach of our courts, to the loudest and most vocal family members of 9/11 victims , to the leftist family members of a few of our brave soldiers, being related to a victim makes anyone, morally, a saint and beyond public criticism.
Having experienced a recent loss, I know that people deal with the death of loved one's differently. Too bad the family of this fine young man couldn't get someone to screen out the relatives who spit on the legacy of a volunteer soldier who died in the service of the country he loved and a cause he believed in. May God provide consolation to the family that raised such a fine son, through the actions and words of Christ's hands on Earth. We all feel their loss.
Take it easy. Give the guy a break. I cannot begin to imagine the grief that they are experiencing.. Bush would understand.
So very true....losing of close a family member for whatever reason is always very difficult....
Aw, c'mon -- "innocent poultry workers" is as good as anything that Monty Python ever came up with.
I suppose the homicide bomber still gets the virgins for this brave act in the holy jihad. Some people still cannot get it through their heads that bringing this false religion into the U.S. is setting the table for great misery in the future.
That's because we pay the families of terrorists nothing, but we pay the families of "innocent poultry workers" thousands.
Sorry, it should have NOTHING to do with the identification of guilt, the extent or severity of guilt or the final adjudication of justice towards the gulity. Guilt or innocence and the severity of that guilt, in law, should be related 100% to the crime, period. The feelings of the family members of the victim are irrelevant TO LAW AND LEGAL JUSTICE.
I am not denying their just feelings. They are true and they represent something that results in them from the crime. That's the whole point, its IN THEM and it's THEIR FEELINGS. The law was not intended to resolve those feelings.
From a legal standpoint, in my view, relatives of "victims" are not "the victim", in any legal sense, and inspite of the impact on their lives, our historical legal philosophy was designed to bring justice for what happened to THE ACTUAL VICTIM and not for those who a grieving over that victim.
It is a legal path that we are already feeling the adverse impact of throughout our public discourse.
When the actual victim is dead, it's going to be tough getting a statement out of him without John Edwards. And, not surprisingly, a crime can impact those around the actual victim, like the children, spouse, etc. And as long as defendants can submit the amount of specious crap they do to mitigate the sentence, I can live with victim impact statements.
Hi Fred. I wondered if someone would say this to me. Look at the man's statement--it's straight out of the DNC playbook. Does he scream out against the terrorists who slaughtered his nephew? Does he condemn the liberals who, by providing encouragement to our enemies, are extending this war and increasing the number of American soldiers killed? No, he accuses the U.S. government of not having a plan, a stupid accusation that has been repeatedly debunked over the last year.
I don't question the man's grief, just his judgment.
UGLY!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.