Gibson's folly
I turned on the end of Jon Gibson's show yesterday to hear him in complete meltdown. He was blathering on and on about how "we" should get it "now!", and that he was glad to hear that the Brit police had finally decided to start taking this thing seriously and to put 5 bullets in the head of every threat. He kept repeating the "5 bullets" phrase and finally declared that he didn't want to hear any complaints about the barbarity of that attitude because "everyone" needs to understand that we are in a war (anyone know where I can get a transcript?).
Then the news that 27 year old Brazilian citizen Jean Charles de Menezes had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of this week or two weeks ago. The police are shocked, they regret the incident (probably not as much as the man or his family), and the Brazilian government is beside themselves (all courtesy of Drudge, the last link will probably die, soon).
Do you get it now, Jon? You and all the other blowhards (O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, etc.) who apparently don't understand why we still stick to the outdated, tired, antiquated, barbaric idea of trial by jury? Sometimes, you see, the police are wrong. Sometimes they cut corners to get a quick conviction. We know that even some of the dangerous terrorists "picked up on the battlefield" and sent to Gitmo weren't dangerous terrorists, after all, because we've been letting them go. Or maybe you think that's a mistake? Do you know something we don't? If so, let's hear about it at the trial.
I'm not the only one who's been noticing Jon Gibson's absence from his senses. I don't think he's coming back, either. Too bad, because he needs to collect his Schmuck Award.
Then the news that 27 year old Brazilian citizen Jean Charles de Menezes had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of this week or two weeks ago. The police are shocked, they regret the incident (probably not as much as the man or his family), and the Brazilian government is beside themselves (all courtesy of Drudge, the last link will probably die, soon).
Do you get it now, Jon? You and all the other blowhards (O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, etc.) who apparently don't understand why we still stick to the outdated, tired, antiquated, barbaric idea of trial by jury? Sometimes, you see, the police are wrong. Sometimes they cut corners to get a quick conviction. We know that even some of the dangerous terrorists "picked up on the battlefield" and sent to Gitmo weren't dangerous terrorists, after all, because we've been letting them go. Or maybe you think that's a mistake? Do you know something we don't? If so, let's hear about it at the trial.
I'm not the only one who's been noticing Jon Gibson's absence from his senses. I don't think he's coming back, either. Too bad, because he needs to collect his Schmuck Award.
Labels: police-state
<< Home