When a person gets into an auto-accident and someone dies, we don't accuse him of having blood on his hands. Tancredo accused the adminstration of murder.
However, he did say that if a terrorist attack occurred and it was due to lax immigration policy, then the blood of those killed would be on the hands of the Bush administration *AND* the Congress...which he is a member of. So he himself would have to shoulder some of that blame by his own words.
I don't agree with that. The blood would be on the terrorists hands, not our government, unless they knowingly knew that people would die in a specific situation.
What if that same person has had several drinks? That would change things, wouldn't it? What Tancredo is saying, IMO, is that for Congress and the Executive have an obligation to maintain the borders of this country, and if their failure to do so allowed terrorists to enter the country, they would share part of the responsibility for any acts they commit. If this is what he meant (beneath the inflammatory rhetoric), then I would agree with him. In fact, we would *all* have to shoulder some of the blame because we elected officials who failed in their duty and did not remove them.
Tuor
I don't agree with that. The blood would be on the terrorists hands, not our government, unless they knowingly knew that people would die in a specific situation.
If you get into an accident, wife and kids killed, because you didn't want to get your hands dirty and fix the brakes you are responsible and you would know it. Even if it wasn't your fault...some guy ran a red light and you could have stopped if only you had fixed the brakes. You would spend the rest of your days blaming yourself inwardly while outwardly attempting to blame the other party. Blood on your hands.period.
EBUCK