Defending the Indefensible
posted at 9:41 am on August 23, 2009 by Howard Portnoy
According to a BBC report, Scottish leaders continue to step deeper and deeper into wee-wee in their attempts to defend the indefensible. Responding to growing criticism of the release of the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmand said Scotland made the “right decision,” adding “We did it because it was the right thing to do in terms of the Scottish justice system.”
I don’t profess to have expertise in Scottish law, but if there is a statute on the books that says “Unspeakable acts of depraved indifference toward human life will be forgiven if the perpetrator develops terminal prostate cancer,” I can say without fear of contradiction that Scottish law is broken.
In the meantime, reaction on the international front to the decision to free Megrahi remains curious, to say the least. In a fashion typical of his past displays of courage, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown refuses to comment on Muammar al-Gaddafi’s claim on Libyan TV that “my friend” Gordon Brown helped secure Megrahi’s release. Here at home, Barack Obama gets it right for once, saying the action of the Scottish government was “a mistake.” I give the president full credit for having a human — if arguably restrained — reaction, but at the same I am confused by it, since he is a champion of “empathy” when it comes to matters of law. So let me see if I’ve got it straight: Pregnant teenagers and culturally diverse people deserve empathy unless they are deranged terrorists . . . whoops! — I mean perpetrators of man-caused disasters in oversees contingency operations.
Adapted from and cross-posed at Zombie Contentions
Recently in the Green Room:
- Sunday reflection: Matthew 4:1-11
- Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained