Thursday, 3 September 2009
|0737 - Who has the more compassion?|
The UK releases a convicted terrorist mass murderer to go home to a hero's welcome in Libya because he's dying of cancer.
California refuses to release the Manson "family" member who stabbed Sharon Tate to death on similar grounds.
Personally, I maintain that the California decision is the more compassionate, because it shows compassion for those who deserve it: the victims and their families.
As far as I'm concerned, the Libyan and the Manson killer both deserve to die in jail. It's a travesty of justice that one will not.
current mood: pissed off
And of course, Atkins not having/giving away billions of dollars of oil I'm sure factors in to it as well....
Where are the leftists howling about "no blood for oil" now?
Seeing as I haven't heard any "leftists" saying it's okay in the first place...
they're, uh, still shouting it? don't be so obtuse.
They're still shouting it about the war in Iraq, but not about letting a convicted terrorist mass murderer go so the UK can get Libyan oil. No hypocrisy there at all, no sir.
Which 'leftists'? (As much as the term actually has a meaning.) Because there's a hell of a fuss being kicked up here over the fact he was let go, from all the parties.
Really? What left wing sites do you read? How would you know it isn't happening in this case? All of the major, evil, liberal network TV news outlets covered the oil deal. MSNBC covered it. Hell, Huffington Post
even covered it that way.
Look, just because you say something doesn't make it true. I know it sucks, but these things called facts tend to get in the way of a good rant sometimes. A little research (do they have Google in the US still?) would've gone a long way here.
What I find kind of funny (in a sad sort of way) though, is that it's a conservative
British government that did this deal in the first place, and yet you're using this as an opportunity to... bash liberals? Yeah, no hypocrisy indeed.
Covered it, maybe. Come out against it with the same frothing hatred they showed toward the Iraq war? Haw!
As for the Blair government being conservative, only radical leftists think so, because Blair's not leftist enough for them.
Maybe because going to war against an entire country for oil is a little more severe (and has caused a few orders of magnitude more deaths) than the 20-year-old bombing of a passenger airplane? Just a guess!
But thanks for at least conceding the point: the "left wing media" has covered the story and condemned the decision, just not to your liking. Which surprises me this much: .
And your idea of a "radical leftist" is anybody who doesn't read LGF and Powerline or have a life membership to the NRA, so that's pretty much most people on the planet.
Compassion is a legitimate factor in the consideration as to whether to give parole.
Critically, however, it should not be viewed as the *sole* consideration.
The parole board in California, rightly, considered the nature of the crime. As the sister of Shannon Tate noted, there was no compassion granted to either Tate or her unborn child. Put another way, the crime was vicious, and is a serious counter-argument to release.
I don't think they weigh such things in the same manner in Europe, of course.
I agree with you on this one.