dr. elsewhere here
Hm. I don’t normally listen to talk shows. But tonight on my way home, I had NPR on, and the talk show On Point was discussing Sandra Day O’Connor’s concerns about threats to the judiciary.
I was only in the car a few minutes, but I did catch a call in from a lawyer from South Carolina who made this terrific point. In the Moussaoui sentencing case, where they'll decide if the government gets to execute him, the prosecution is asserting that, had Moussaoui alerted the authorities, the FBI would have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks.
The caller’s point was that, if the prosecution's assertion is true, then the USAPATRIOT Act was not, and is not, needed.
What an elegant observation. Add this to your growing list of internal contradictions coming out of the WH. Not surprising, given their agenda is neither honesty nor integrity, instead simply covering their sorry asses.
Oh, and while the administration’s claim renders the USAPATRIOT Act irrelevant, it does bail out the airlines who are being sued by 9/11 families. Maybe they think that frying Moussaoui and saving the airlines are more important than justifying the USAPATRIOT Act?
1 comment:
Speaking of airlines being sued... what was Carla Martin's role with Pan Am when one of their planes crashed or was blown up over Lockerbie?
Post a Comment