Comments on: Sirhan Sirhan up for parole today

By: tehag

tehag — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:57:38 +0000

“Sirhan’s act is that the killing of a presidential candidate is now a federal crime”

Absolutely. Our new nobility need single, double, even triple laws against taking their lives. They are, after all, so much more important than ordinary folk. No sense even pretending this stuff about equality before the law: just alter the law to make some number of legs more important than other number of legs, er, offices, or almost-offices, or whatever.

Ever murder I’ve ever known debated before committing murder on the severity of the laws against murder, and more than once mere state laws against murder have failed to deter while federal laws, well, when weighing their planned crimes, a federal law made all the difference.

” it allows Federal law enforcement (e.g., FBI, US Marshals, US Attorneys) to become involved in advance of a showing of interstate issues.”

Absolutely. Those states. Why are they around anyway? When you want incorruptible law enforcement, TSA, Homeland Security and Eric Holder, that’s who I want involved.

By: I R A Darth Aggie

I R A Darth Aggie — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:23:11 +0000

It’s the 14th time this has occurred, and the hearing is likely to go the way of all the rest and end in denial.

That’s too bad.

I’m guessing it’s the same crowd against Sirhan Sirhan that wanted leniancy for Tookie Williams.

By: Alex Bensky

Alex Bensky — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:47:49 +0000

James Pierson has pointed out that the left dealt with the cognitive dissonance of dealing with the fact that JFK and RFK were killed by a disgruntled communist and a Palestinian by basically ignoring it. So even today you will see statements that “they” killed Jack and Bobby and that the deaths were due to some sort of inchoate right-wing rage.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:36:35 +0000

“and target them for that reason” my understanding (shaky it may be) is that it doesn’t matter what the reason is. If a killer chooses a random target, and the target is a federal employee on the job, that’s enough.

The point about tracking a candidate to a non-death-penalty state is a good one, though the same could be done with a non-candidate.

By: Parker

Parker — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:52:03 +0000

I was not, as a young man, particularly a fan of RFK; however, I remember yippie-hippie-SDS types (circa 1968-9) sporting “Sirhan Shiran Lives” buttons. That was a profound turning point in my young life. From that point forward I realized ‘progressivism’ was dangerous, ugly, and vile. Turn on, tune in, hate is not a message that resonated with me.

“If you go carrying pictures of Chairmen Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.” (Seems to be a Lennon-McCartney night.)

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:31:32 +0000

Destroy the DNA evidence the day after the execution.

Problem solved.

At some point a decision has to become final, right, wrong, or indifferent. Even the NFL recognizes that with instant replay.

By: KBK

KBK — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:24:27 +0000

You woudn’t want to risk executing him, future DNA evidence might exonerate him.

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 01:57:22 +0000

F, no. Nothing’s that unreliable, especially with that imbecile Holder nominally running it.

I was speaking to the general proposition, not to our current specific circumstances, which God knows are dolorous.

By: F

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 01:17:01 +0000

Occam’s beard:

“. . .in case the state courts are of dubious reliability.”

As compared to Obama’s Justice Department? F

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:12:13 +0000

Yes, there should be federal laws for crimes against national candidates for president, and yes, there should even be federal laws against shooting federal employees when in the line of duty or by people who know they are federal employees and target them for that reason.

Biggest reason: it allows Federal law enforcement (e.g., FBI, US Marshals, US Attorneys) to become involved in advance of a showing of interstate issues.

It also allows at least the option of trial in Federal courts, in case the state courts are of dubious reliability.

Pretty good reasons, methinks.