Greenwald mocking Malkin -upset because "Muslims will execute Christians"

[Pirate Smile]

From Glenn Greenwald

Well beyond satire

Michelle Malkin is extremely upset because three convicted Christian terrorists in Indonesia are going to be executed despite -- in Michelle's words -- "grave doubts raised over the fairness of the trial." The title of her post is "Muslims will execute Christians" -- by which she means that the Government of a predominantly Muslim country will execute three defendants who happen to be Christian, because they also happen to have been convicted in a trial in an Indonesian court of law "of masterminding a massacre of 200 Muslims in Poso."

Michelle favorably links to this article from Asia News which reports -- and I'm not making this up -- that the lawyers for the three convicted Terrorists:

will take their case before the International Criminal Court in Geneva, as per a human rights convention ratified by Jakarta, to safeguard the three men’s right to life and to denounce irregularities of Indonesian trials.

Michelle, and an equally outraged Gateway Pundit (to whom she links), both provide contact information to protest on behalf of the Terrorists and to help those organizations trying to secure them a stay of execution and a new trial.

According to the article to which Michelle linked, the complaint is that the Terrorists "were convicted by a trial riddled with illegalities, like witnesses who were not listened to and evidence that was rejected by the court." Wow -- a trial where the witnesses are not listened to and improper evidence was used. What kind of country would convict someone of terrorism using procedures like that? And what kind of disgusting barbarians would be opposed to having "the International Criminal Court in Geneva," pursuant to an international "human rights convention," demand greater legal protections for terrorists?

This post writes itself. For instance, I thought (from having read Michelle's blog) that people who were concerned about due process for Terrorists are themselves pro-terrorists. I wonder what it is about this case that makes Michelle and Gateway Pundit so concerned for the Rights of Terrorists when normally they mock those who express such concern? What's different here? Do Malkin and her comrades want to protect terrorists more than innocent people? Sure seems that way. And just look at how brutal and inhumane Muslims are -- convicting people of terrorism despite evidentiary irregularities in their trial. That is the Evil we are battling in our War of Civilizations.

Maybe the U.S. Government could intervene on behalf of the convicted Terrorists and insist that even accused terrorists have the right to a fair trial and due process, and that it is inhumane and barbaric to impose the death penalty after convicting them of terrorism without first giving them a trial free of any irregularities. A fair trial prior to execution is, after all, a universal value -- even for Terrorists.

We have great moral authority in the world to make that point and I'm sure our protest would go over really well and Indonesia would do what it could to ensure that it was meeting our high standards of justice before proceeding with the execution of these Terrorists. Or maybe we could use our influence with the International Criminal Court in Geneva to advocate for greater protections and a fair trial for these convicted Terrorists.

UPDATE: Of course, if Indonesia would only do what the Bush administration does -- which is imprison people without giving them any trial or process at all, as Michelle gleefully celebrates -- then they wouldn't have to worry about all this hand-wringing from the terrorist rights crowd over "trial irregularities."

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/well-beyond-satire.html

[muntrv]

1. Malkin is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.

[Pirate Smile]

2. I guess not.

[babylonsister]

3. So she's supporting "terrorists" because they're Christian?

:wtf:

[Erika]

4. Malkin is a self serving idiot

She's only one half of a step above Coultergeist.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

5. Greenwald

ROCKS!

[muntrv]

6. MORAL RELATIVISM, MICHELLE!!!

[Danger Mouse]

7. Malkin is a....

hypofuckingcrite. She wishes she could be Man Coulter. At least I can look at Malkin without wanting to wretch. Man Coulter is damn ugly.
And of course, there's a double standard in terrorism in this country. After all, why aren't people who bomb abortion clinics or assassinate abortion doctors tried as terrorists? Oh right. Cause they're lilywhite Christians, not those shady brown people. No torture or indefinite imprisonment for Mr. Abortion Clinic Bomber!

[muntrv]

8. Malkin is one of those shady brown people. But don't tell her that or

her head will explode and........ on second thought, do tell her.

[BreweryYardRat]

22. My take on the respective appearances of the RW shrews is vicey-versy.

Other than that, I've gotta agree with you.

[treestar]

9. What a total hypocrite!

Hell, she even gave me ammunition that I didn't have! I didn't know there were Christian terrorists in the Muslim countries! (This type of ignorance on the part of the wing nuts often being exploited).

[NewJeffCT]

10. The hypocrisy would be laughable if it were a less serious issue

However, as Greenwald says, it is beyond satire.

This is such Bizarro-World hypocrisy that almost brings tears to my eyes. I'm not normally a guy prone to shows of emotion - and I'm not joking, either.

[Supersedeas]

12. it is filthy hypocrisy and there is nothing funny about it--i agree

[NovaNardis]

11. Malkin is great because the rules of logic don't apply to her...

And it is also great because no matter what BS she spews, she has no commenting function on her page so no one can challenge what she thinks! (I get the same feeling from TPM to an extant.) Malkin is the biggest hypocrite in the world. That whole free speech issue about Denmark was a classic example. They should be allowed from speech, but the student protesters at UC are somehow traitors.

She thinks she is always right with her gut instinct, and no consistency need apply. That is how you tell a partisan from a wingnut. Partisans at least think about their opinions. Wingbats just assume they are right and everyone else is not only wrong but evil, facts and logic be damned.

[gratuitous]

13. You can comment at Talking Points Memo

Although it's not HaloScan, where any ninnyhammer can immediately post every addle-pated impulse that crosses his mind, there is a comment feature wherein you can address TPM directly about anything. I would guess that the more thoughtful and erudite submissions receive their due consideration.

[RebelOne]

14. You know what is strange?

Michelle Malkin is an atheist. So why should she care one way or another whether they are Christians?

[Anakin Skywalker]

15. She's Atheist? That's a shock.

Where did you hear that?

[RebelOne]

17. She posted it on her Web site.

[Bridget Burke]

20. This site says she's Roman Catholic....

www.nndb.com/people/761/000027680/

And one of her columns I managed to finish mentioned a visit to Church. Of course, she lies.

[othermeans]

16. So if I'm to understand this according to the article it would be OK to

execute these people regardless of their religious persuasion even if there existed irregularities in their trial because Malkin is a dork? Somehow I thought that the law should apply equally to everyone and the assumption of innocence is presumed no matter who the defendant(s) are.

[ima_sinnic]

18. the point is her hypocrisy and that of US admin, not merits of the case

nobody is suggesting that it is "OK" to execute anyone without a fair trial.

[othermeans]

21. I thought hypocrisy took a back seat to justice especially when someone's

life was at stake

[Igel]

19. Part of the problem is the religious controversy surrounding

these Xians. Even leaving aside the problems with witnesses (shocking how many people here feebly assume that one wrong done to one person justifies another wrong ... perhaps they've been drinking too much communalist kool-aid, and have started to assume that justice applies primarily to groups, not individuals).

There are also Muslims on trial for terrorism in a rather celebrated--among Islamists--case. The government's afraid that if the Xians that were charged got lesser sentences than the Muslims, or their penalty wasn't carried out before the Muslims' sentence, that there would be riots from the most ardent practitioners of the religion of peace.

Once the two trials were linked, the only way to secure a conviction for the Muslims, and any kind of harsh penalty, was to ensure that the number of Christians convicted was at least equal to that of the Muslims involved, and that their penalty is at least as harsh. Honor above justice, honor above truth. Gotta love tribal, communal-style thinking.

What's not said is that typically Muslims are the recipients of Islam-related mercy: come Eid, come Ramadhan, and prisoners' sentences are reduced or the prisoners freed. Christians' don't receive this mercy. They're not in the tribe. So what's likely to happen is that the Xians will receive a harsh penalty to license a harsh penalty against Muslims, and then the Muslims' harsh sentence will be commuted.