I know I've already written about this, but, this from Media Matters has me baffled:
Despite the fear-mongering of many conservatives, the Obama administration's decision to prosecute five alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City has the backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered," Bloomberg said last week, noting that the city has "hosted terrorism trials before."
However, a far-right congressman from the other side of the country doesn't appreciate Bloomberg's confidence in New Yorkers. Speaking on the House floor last night, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) went after Bloomberg personally, suggesting that the mayor's daughter could be "kidnapped at school by a terrorist" because of the trial:SHADEGG: I saw the Mayor of New York said today, "We're tough. We can do it." Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister? This is political correctness run amok.
I can't even parse the stupidity of Rep. Shadegg. Why would KSM's presence in NYC lead to the kidnapping of Mayor Bloomberg's daughter? So that he would free him? I'm pretty sure that this is a federal case, so kidnapping Bloomberg's daughter would do about as much as it would if KSM were still in Gitmo. As for kidnapping the kid of the "clerk of the court," why? Will the clerk then free him--even in the presence of massive security and ? And how is it that the terrorists are so amazing that they can go around kidnapping people's kids (even though they haven't yet)? And if they're that good, then why haven't they been able to kidnap, say, the child of the commander of Gitmo?
And then, when did charging criminals in court become "political correctness." Honestly, I have no idea what Shadegg means. Maybe anything Republicans don't like is now political correctness.
Normally, when Republicans are saying weird shit, I'm able to at least find an argument. The premises are almost always wrong, and occasionally there are deductive errors--but there's an argument.
Is Shadegg making an argument? If he is, I can neither discern the premises nor the logical connections between thoughts. I can project some thoughts:
(1) The terrorists are super-villains
(2) They will appear in any city where we put other terrorists on trial
(3) They will then indiscriminately kidnap children in an attempt to get the incarcerated terrorists freed.
(4) Or something.
Maybe I just don't speak stupid as well as I used to. Let me say this, though: Rep. Shadegg, if these guys represent an existential threat to the United States, then they want to destroy our civic institutions--like the rule of law. If we give up on that rule because of the terrorists, then that's a victory for them.
|