Patterico's Pontifications


The Path To 9/11 – Which Path Will It Be?

Filed under: Civil Liberties,General,Media Bias,Movies — Justin Levine @ 10:40 pm

[posted by Justin Levine]

KFI’s John Ziegler claims to have sources in ABC now confirming that they have caved to pressure on the “Path To 9/11” by editing some key scenes that Clinton officials were objecting to. Many others have been hearing similar stories.

I can’t confirm the precise nature of the cuts, so its difficult for me to comment on it at this juncture. I’ve heard they involve a key scene where Sandy Berger refuses to give the final go-ahead to take out Bin Laden, but I am hearing all of this second-hand.

[Ziegler actually played a remarkable sound cut of actor Donnie Wahlberg suggesting that the original cut of the film that was set to air actually took it easy on the Clinton Administration based on some of the historical accounts that he has read.]

We will have to wait until this weekend to know for sure if anything of substance has been changed or not.

But regardless of what (if anything) was actually cut (or the issue of its justification) – this gives me a good opportunity to test the resolve of the Patterico readership on one of my pet issues:


Clint Taylor’s Hezbollah Exclusive

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:48 pm

Clint Taylor has today’s “Vent with Michelle Malkin,” with an exclusive look at Hezbollah’s operations in Latin America.

Flouting the Rule of Law

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am

Yesterday I asked people who support jury nullification what they would do if they perceived a conflict between the rule of law and the dictates of their own conscience. I asked: if the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of a breaking a valid law, but convicting the defendant appeared to be an unjust result, would you:

a) follow the law and convict;
b) follow your conscience and acquit; or
c) ask to get off the jury?

I believe the correct answer is either a or c. Jurors should follow the law, and if the situation is so extreme that following the law would keep them up at night, they should get off the jury (absent circumstances so unusual that the entire fabric of society has broken down).

But several of you picked choice b. You said you’d stay on the jury and acquit, despite your oath to follow the judge’s instructions. You said you would always follow your conscience over the law.

Here’s my question for you:

Do you think that’s how federal judges should behave?

Because some of them do — and if you believe that conscience always trumps the rule of law, you have no standing to complain about it.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1467 secs.