Justice redefined
When alleged funders of terrorism are brought to trial and the jury is asked to make 197 different decisions of guilt or innocence, that’s quite a large task. When they vote for acquittal on a handful, can’t reach agreement on the rest, what does that mean?
Why, of course, it means - per the Malkin-bots - that the prosecutors botched the case, Americans don’t believe terrorists threaten us, the jury was stupid or the racial, religious and gender makeup of the jury made some of them stupid.
The possibility that proof of guilt was not in the evidence is not even considered. Proof, after all, is for liberals. Real justice requires kangaroo courts stacked with jurors who know the verdict going in.
And they may have a point. If half a million Iraqis can die because of a war started without evidence of an imminent threat, we certainly should be able to convict and kill a few guys over here if Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schlussel say so.
What’s next? Will liberal Bush prosecutors take the Dixie Chicks off death row?
