Category Archives: rights

I Sympathize

Posted on by
Reply

Ukraine is preparing to put a captured Russian soldier on trial for a variety of war crimes committed over the course of the Russian barbarian invasion of Ukraine, an invasion still in progress. The 21-yr-old soldier stands accused of

fir[ing] several shots from a Kalashnikov rifle at the head of an unarmed 62-year-old man, who died on the spot just a few dozen meters from his own home in the village of Chupakhivka in Ukraine’s Sumy region[.]

Ukraine Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova says the murder occurred on February 28. The soldier is a tank commander, which in the Russian army makes him a junior NCO.

The soldier absolutely stand trial for the crime, and I think the 10-15 years to life in prison should he be convicted is light. This is the sort of crime that should draw capital punishment.

However.

It occurs to me that before those who are no more than foot soldiers are tried for the war crimes they’re accused of committing, their officers—who created the environment within which their subordinates felt free to commit these atrocities—should be tried for their complicity in war crimes.

Unfortunately and especially in the present case, where so many of the Russian barbarian officers have evaded capture (or those few of them remaining have been killed in action), it will be hard to bring the foot soldiers’ officers in, try them, and if convicted, execute them.

Put this 21-yr-old on trial, certainly. But be sure he’s being tried for what he did, and punished suitably for it if convicted; do not use him as a scapegoat for not being able to get at the officers who allowed, if not actively encouraged, these atrocities.

Not Entirely

Posted on by
Reply

In the face of days of threatened violence—the active attempts to terrorize the families of Supreme Court Justices at their homes, which, just incidentally is a violation of Federal law regarding efforts to intimidate judges and force a particular judicial outcome—and actual violence—the firebombing of a pro-life facility in Wisconsin—White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, had this to say:

@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.

Via a tweet, yet, not even a formal statement.

It’s also an unbelievable claim under any guise. If President Joe Biden (D) really meant that, if he truly had the courage of his conviction, he’d come out and say so himself, formally, in front of the press and us American citizens, instead of hiding behind the skirts of his Press Secretary and using her mouth to pretend to mean these things.

“diminished public trust in the Court is a good thing”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of Ian Millhiser over at Vox. He added this, and he actually was serious:

Litigation, in other words, is a far more potent tool in the hands of an anti-governmental movement than it is in the hands of one seeking to build a more robust regulatory and welfare state.

That’s a feature of our republican democracy form of governance, not a bug. Millhiser’s beef is with our Constitution, not with our courts; our Constitution being as clear as it is on who makes the laws (it’s not the courts) and as clear as it is, also, on the lack of sacrosanctness of legislative edifices. Parliamentary Supremacy is a British thing, not an American one.

Millhiser knows this full well, and he destroys his credibility by pretending otherwise.

Parental Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Some court cases are being engaged in response to the number of Leftist school boards pushing child sex transition “discussions” onto children behind the kids’ parents backs, and occasionally in defiance of parents’ written instructions.

A handful of court cases are being debated to decide whether school officials should be required to tell parents if their child identifies as LGBT.

These Leftists actually think going behind the parents’ backs is justifiable.

[Lambda Legal lawyer Kell] Olson would like to see parents support school districts’ “reasonable policies” rather than resort reflexively to the courts to uphold parental rights.

This gives away the game. No school policy that denies parents knowledge of the child’s performance at school or of the school’s treatment of their child is reasonable. No school policy that in any way seeks to circumscribe parents’ rights can be reasonable. That especially applies to whose responsibility it is to have discussions with children regarding gender and sex and sexual behavior.

Contrary to Olson’s attempts to justify this abusive behavior, not just of the parents’ rights, but of the parents’ kids, also, here’s Rick Claybrook, representing parents in a lawsuit against the Montgomery County school district:

Kids have their parents to protect them because they’re not able to do so until they reach maturity….

Especially, apparently, to protect them from out of control school boards and school administrators and school teachers.

Disinformation

Posted on by
Reply

…about his new Truth Division Disinformation Governance Board.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said “there’s no question” he could have more effectively communicated the purpose of his newly-created “disinformation” board….

Mayorkas also said that his

Disinformation Governance Board [is] to combat online disinformation….

Of course, it is. And it’s the Biden-Harris administration personnel and Mayorkas who will decide what is truth and what is fiction and who will dictate via that Truther Board what we American citizens will be permitted to hear, and it’s the Biden-Harris administration personnel and Mayorkas who will tell us how to evaluate what their Board allows to be passed.

And this from Mayorkas:

You know, an individual has the free speech right to spew anti-Semitic rhetoric. What they don’t have the right to do is take hostages in a synagogue, and that’s where we get involved.

That’s a cynically and dishonestly presented red herring. Those two items have little to do with each other, and we already have statutes on the books barring the latter, as well as barring the former from taking the form of inciting the latter. No Truther Board is needed except to push Government censorship.

Putting a woman well-known for her own disinformation-spreading enthusiasm and skill in charge of the Board makes plain the degree of censorship to which this agency’s actions are intended to reach.