Blue Crab Boulevard

This Makes Me Sick

I woke up this morning and even more people have been posting on Murtha. It comes down to exactly two camps. On the "right" uniform outrage that a US Congressman would publicize an investigation - before it is complete - and declare the people involved guilty.

Not one - not one single one of those bloggers has said one word saying that the matter should not be investigated. Every single one - unanimously across the board - has said that if true the guilty should be put on trial. NOT ONE has called for covering anything up. Every single one has been incensed at a US Congressman endangering US soldiers by releasing information that should not even be discussed until the investigation is complete.

And every, single "left" wing blog has been decrying the "atrocity". Every one has utterly concluded that a) the events are absolutely true and b) the people involved are absolutely guilty. Oh and Murtha is a bold "veteran Marine" who "speaks with authority". In their very best sanctimonious voices they are decrying the "right wing attack machine".

In other words, every single one I have seen has completely and utterly missed the point of what has angered those of us who have come down on Murtha. Across the board - every single one.

It's obvious that the left's absolutism on rights only extends to things they believe are important. If the rights of a soldier are violated, no problem. If it suits their purpose, screw the constitution. If you do not realize that what Murtha did is morally wrong and is simply not excusable by anyone, you have a major flaw in your moral compass. There are these little things called "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process"- unless it suits the purpose of the left to pay no attention to those things.

So speaking "truth to power" has morphed completely now into "speaking whatever we want to to gain power".

UPDATE: And this is exactly what we have been getting mad about. This is AFP's report. THIS is what the world believes because of people like Murtha.

Blogosphere, Left Wing | Gaius Thursday, 18 May , 2006

By Diva, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 8:23 am

Gaius,
Excellent post.
By Gaius, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 8:43 am

Thank you, Diva.
By Juggler, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 9:02 am

This is just absurd.

By your standards, criminal cases should not be disclosed until the investigation is complete.

You say you’re not for a coverup, but what you are proposing makes it much easier for a coverup to happen.

You’re also trying to change the subject, from the alleged atrocity to Murtha’s supposed disgrace.

There is no disgrace in shedding light on shameful acts.
By Diva, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 9:39 am

Juggler - it’s presumed innocent until proven guilty. You conveniently left out the key word alleged. It should be alleged shameful acts. Murtha, had no business opening his mouth on this one until the investigation was finished. He is a disgrace. All he had to do was wait for the outcome and then he could’ve booked himself on all the network news shows and talked about his “Feelings” until he was good and satisfied. As it stands now, Murtha is an opportunistic pig who has put politics above all else.

Also, it’s not about disclosing information about a criminal case - this is about disclosing the information associated with a military investigation and tribunal - two completely different things. AND, here’s the big AND - most criminal investigations DO NOT disclose information pertinent to the case until trial - it’s called a LEAK when it’s done. Publicly discussing the investigation is not part of our constitutional rights- a fair trial is. You are just used to “the discussion” because the Media has made it their job to sensationalize crimes and pre-trial information.

And your last statement even if it is missing the word ALLEDGED, is absolutely correct that is why the Military is investigating this case. There was nothing Murtha had to do or say to shed light on this case because a group of Military investigators were already doing their job.
By Gaius, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 9:41 am

Beautiful, Diva. Thanks.
By Black Jack, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 12:02 pm

Does John Murtha jump to conclusions when it comes to Patrick Kennedy, or Ted Kennedy, or Bill Clinton, or does he take a “wait and see” position when it’s politically convenient to look the other way?

Does John Murtha only assume the worst when it’s out troops at issue, or does he think Saddam deserves the benefit of the doubt, how about Osama? Do they get a pass while our boys get the back of his hand?

I wonder if he thinks the Duke Lacrosse team should be lynched before they ever get their day in court.
By Juggler, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 12:59 pm

Okay, how about those people held in Guantanamo for 4 1/2 years without a trial. How about innocent until proven guilty for them?

Here’s Bill O’Reilly on the people at Guantanamo:

“I donâ€™t give them any protection. I donâ€™t feel sorry for them. In fact, I probably would have ordered their execution if I had the power.”

And here’s Sean Hannity:

“[t]here’s nobody at GuantÃ¡namo Bay that’s there for nothing.”
By Gaius, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 1:15 pm

Juggler - I could care less what those two have to say - I have almost never listened to them. I am getting tired of you throwing what others say at me and telling me to defend it. GO ASK THEM.

Enemy combatants not covered by the Geneva or Hague conventions are a real problem I do not know the answer to. But they are not entitled to US constitutional protection. Period.
By Juggler, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 2:25 pm

Gaius,

Tell me where in the Bill of Rights it exempts ANYONE from its protections.

Also, tell me exactly how Murtha’s statement violates anyone’s rights. He said he has information that atrocities were committed. He didn’t single anyone out by name.

You’ve stated that he’s endangered troops, but that seems unlikely–Iraqis already know about this.
By Gaius, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 2:29 pm

Ah, so everyone is entitled to American citizenship. There we see the problem. Maybe when the rest of the world starts recognizing our constitutional rights we can discuss that.

You do not know how many Iraqis knew about this, stop acting like you do. I can promise you they all know now.
By Juggler, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 3:45 pm

I didn’t say that, but the Bill of Rights doesn’t say that only citizens are entitled to its protections.

I didn’t say that all Iraqis knew about the alleged atrocities. But you also don’t know how many people learned of them from Murtha’s statement, so quit pretending that you do.
By Gaius, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 3:59 pm

Oh how very clever. Look at AFP. Let me know how many you think all the coverage will bring.
By Juggler, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 6:12 pm

Why did you delete my last post?
By Juggler, Thursday, 18 May , 2006 @ 6:15 pm

Never mind. It looked like it had been deleted. Sorry about that.