Heathens! Well, at least they’re not Muslims!
For more blasphemy, check here…
OK, I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with Krauthammer. Sorry, Bleeding Hearts, this scumbag deserves no mercy. As Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post:
You’ve got your Mexican standoff, your Russian roulette, your Chinese water torture. And now, your Libyan crossfire. That’s when a pistol is applied to the head and a bullet crosses from one temple to the other.
That’s apparently what happened to Moammar Gaddafi after he was captured by Libyan rebels — died in a “crossfire,” explains Libya’s new government. This has greatly agitated ACLU types, morally unemployed ever since a Democratic administration declared Guantanamo humane. The indignation has spread to human rights groups and Western governments, deeply concerned about the manner of Gaddafi’s demise.
Let’s begin at the beginning. Early in the revolution, Gaddafi could have had due process. Indeed, he could have had something better: asylum (in Nicaragua, for example) with a free pass for his crimes. If he stepped down, thereby avoiding the subsequent civil war that killed thousands of his countrymen, he could have enjoyed a nice, fat retirement, like that of Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia.
Like Amin, Gaddafi would not have deserved a single day of untroubled repose. Such an outcome would itself have been a gross violation of justice, as he’d have gone unpunished for his uncountable crimes. But it would have spared his country much bloodshed and suffering.
Such compromises are fully justified and rather common. They are, for example, the essence of the various truth and reconciliation commissions in countries transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy. In post-Pinochet Chile and post-apartheid South Africa, it was decided that full justice — punishing the guilty — would be sacrificed in order to preserve the fragile social peace of the new democracy.
The former oppressors having agreed to a peaceful relinquishing of power, full justice might have ignited renewed civil strife. Therefore, these infant democracies settled for mere truth: a meticulous accounting of the crimes of the previous regime. In return for truthful testimony, perpetrators were given amnesty.
Under the normal rule of law, truth is only a means for achieving justice, not an end in itself. The real end is determining guilt and assigning punishment. But in war and revolution one cannot have everything. Justice might threaten peace. Therefore peace trumps full justice.
Gaddafi could have had such a peace-over-justice compromise. He chose instead to fight to the death. He got what he chose.
That fateful decision to fight — and kill — is the prism through which to judge the cruel treatment Gaddafi received in his last hours. It is his refusal to forgo those final crimes, those final shellings of civilians, those final executions of prisoners that justifies his rotten death.
He could have taken a de facto amnesty for all his previous crimes, from Pan Am 103 to the 1996 massacre of 1,200 inmates at Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison. To reject that option and proceed to create an entirely new catalogue of crimes — for that, there is no forgiveness. For that, you are sentenced to die by “crossfire.”
So he was killed by his captors. Big deal. So was Mussolini. So were the Ceausescus. They deserved far worse. As did Gaddafi. In a world of perfect justice, this Caligula should have suffered far more, far longer. He inflicted unimaginable suffering upon thousands. What did he suffer? Perhaps an hour of torment and a shot through the head. By any standard of cosmic justice, that’s mercy.
Moreover, Gaddafi’s sorry end has one major virtue: deterrence. You are a murderous dictator with a rebellion on your hands. You have a choice. Relinquish power and spare your country further agony, and you can then live out your days like Amin — or like a more contemporary Saudi guest, Tunisia’s Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Otherwise, you die like Gaddafi, dragged from a stinking sewer pipe, abused, taunted and shot.
It’s not pretty. But it’s a precedent. And a salutary one. One that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for example, might contemplate. Continue to fight and kill, and expect thereafter no belated offers of asylum — not even the due process of a long, talky judicial proceeding in The Hague with a nice comfy cell, three meals a day and the consoling certainty that your captors practice none of your specialties: torture and summary execution.
Call it the Gaddafi Rule: Give it up and go, or one day find death by “Libyan crossfire.” Followed by a Libyan state funeral. That’s when you lie on public view for four days, half-naked in a meat locker.
Hamilton was holding a bottle of Canadian Mist whiskey and a large scarecrow, and told police she was buying Halloween decorations for her grandchildren. She said she planned to return home and drink the whiskey by the fire. [Aah, this bring back memories of wonderful times with my Grandma when I was a kid. Gettin’ shitfaced by the fire. With a scarecrow.]
When officers told Hamilton she appeared very intoxicated, she said she had only had a few drinks. She later told officers she’d had about 10. A field sobriety test was not administered because the arresting officer feared she might hurt herself.
[Really? That works? Damn it!!!]
After 3 years of lambasting liberals and every other sentient being on the planet for saying Sarah Palin is a fuckin’ idiot, the charming and insightful Ann Coulter elucidates with the following:
“You know, we used to all love Sarah Palin, conservatives like me, for her enemies,” she said. “I’m starting to dislike her because of her fans.” She added that, “it’s true that liberals will call even smart conservatives stupid. That doesn’t mean that when a liberal calls you stupid it makes you smart.”
Duh. No shit.
And what’s with that Adam’s apple, anyway? There. I said it.
Federal authorities allege in April indictments that were unsealed Monday that Jian-Yun “John” Dong took more than $30,000 from a German national and funneled the money through illegal sources from 2007-09 to support Senator Lindsey Graham’s re-election campaign. Dong and his estranged wife, Danher Wang, reportedly donated beyond the maximum federal limits to both Graham and the PAC in 2007 and 2008. [Do you, Dong, take this Wang …]
In the seven-count election fraud indictment, both Dong and Wang face maximum sentences of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for each count of campaign finance fraud. And Dong faces an additional maximum sentence of 20 years for witness tampering charges.
Graham’s campaign on Monday said they have cooperated with investigators and they noted that in the indictment it notes that the campaign was not aware of the violations.
OK, pretty juvenile, but kinda funny…