Manifestly schizophrenic as well as leftist, its treasonous editors' only hope of avoiding a death sentence for willful espionage is to plead double insanity.
hat is the "protective measure against the abuse" of a traitorous press hellbent on giving the mortal enemy of every American man, woman, and child exactly the who, what, when, where, how, and why of sources and methods we're using to prevent that enemy from destroying as many of us as he can? Putting these traitors to our country on trial for treason and espionage, that's what.
Because there can be no prior-restraint defense, insofar as our government did nothing to block the DNC Slimes' editors from committing outright treason, the defendants are left solely with the extremely plausible claim of gross mental incapacitation.
First we'll examine the most devastating and compelling pieces of evidence showing their chronic schizophrenia:
- Defense Exhibit A
- DNC Slimes editorial dated September 24, 20011
"Finances of Terror"
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies....
The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws....
If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
- Defense Exhibit B
- DNC Slimes editor's letter dated June 25, 20062
(demented ravings translated by expert for the prosecution, Hugh Hewitt, chief of forensic moonbatological psychiatry, Chapman University)
Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress.
There is no charge — none — that the program disclosed by the paper last week needed "legislation" to authorize it. And "fully briefed" is a wonderful characterization of what Mr. Keller cannnot possibly claim to know. This is why he avoids interviews. It would be too easy to ask: Who was briefed, Mr. Keller? How do you know that is the extent of the briefing? Did you ask any of the briefed members if they felt fully informed? Is there a problem with leaks on the Hill that obliges the government to adopt special approaches to classified information, approaches which have been in place for decades?
Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.
Without disclosing the officials, we cannot be certain of their rank, their rancor, and their other agendas. We only know they are willing to break the law and their oaths. Mr. Keller's refusal to acknowledge this basic problem is more evidence of the deep dishonesty of his letter. He again asserts a "public interest" that is not his to judge as against the laws passed by Congress, signed by presidents and interpreted by courts. But he doesn't argue why his judgment in this matter trumps that of the government and the people's elected representatives.
As for evidence showing their chronic leftism, all parties readily concede that it is obviously and entirely a matter of universal common knowledge.
The facts established by either set of evidence clearly indicate a mental capacity and behavioral development matching in every substantive way precisely that of the most morally depraved, desperately disturbed, and emotionally arrested child, whose pathological hatred of and deep seated anger towards himself and others consume him in the extreme. Accordingly, in light of the Supreme Court's Roper ruling ("foreign legal custom and practice trump the U.S. Constitution"), the defendants are exempt in this particular case from any official sentence of death — but not from that popular do-it-yourself kit known as Rope Tree al-Jazeernalist® (some assembly required).
Comments (registered users)
Links to this post: