The Frary Home Companion

Justice, American Style

The US Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, rejected the notion that Fernando Belmontes should be spared the death penalty because his lawyer had failed him by not presenting mitigating evidence about his childhood.

“It is hard to imagine . . . additional facts about Belmontes’ difficult childhood outweighing the facts of [Steacy] McConnell’s murder We agree with the state court’s characterization of the murder” as one of ” ‘extraordinary brutality’ and simply cannot comprehend the assertion by the Court of Appeals that this case did not involve ‘needless suffering.’ “

Belmontes broke into McConnell’s home and struck her in the head 15 or 20 times with a steel barbell, crushing her skull. She put up “a desperate struggle for [her] life,” the court said, but died a few hours after the beating. Belmontes and two accomplices sold her stereo for $100 and used the money to buy beer and drugs.

This is the third time that the US Supreme Court has overturned the appeals court’s rejection of the death penalty decision.

If these rogue judges reject the death penalty on principle, they should resign from the bench. There may be ethical ground for opposing the death penalty, but there can be no grounds for judges to reject the rule of law.

If they genuinely believe that bludgeoning someone 20 times does not involve severe suffering, or that it is nothing more than necessary suffering, than they should seek professional help.

The same razor sharp legal idiocy that motivates the Appeals Court moves Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to observe that arguments raised by Republican senators about whether bin Laden would be afforded Miranda rights if he were captured was a “red herring.” “For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden — we’ve had enough on him, we don’t need to interrogate him.”

Why would we want to interrogate him? Because he might know something about al Qaeda’s plans, operations, personnel, methods, bases?

Gee, how would that stuff be relevant?

It has been pointed out to me that Leahy is not known for his intellect., but then there is beyond-stupid, Uberdummheit, hyper-moronia. On a scale of one to ten, this is something like minus 10.

Then there is Congressman Jim Moran, the Democrats’ leading expert on Israeli conspiracies. Moran damned Americans who believe that terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried by military commissions rather than in civilian courtrooms as “un-American.”

His opponent Matthew Berry, an openly gay former Clarence Thomas clerk, points out that “Military commissions were used to try war crimes during the Revolutionary War, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, and World War II. The use of a military commission to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been entirely in keeping with American history and tradition.”

But the Obama Administration agrees with Moran and insists on holding a civilian trial in, of all places, New York City. This has got to be one of the stupidest decisions ever in American jurisprudence. The upside is that this circus will probably cost less than $100 million. The downside includes, but is not limited to, acquittal (maybe the jury feels sorry for the terrorists because they were waterboarded),, terrorist attack, exposure of classified info, the defendants using the trial for global propaganda, riots foreign and domestic, etc.etc. etc.

Maybe they’ll get a hung jury.  I know I’m glad I am not on that jury and don’t have to worry about a visit from Al Qaeda – how about you?

Professor John Frary of Farmington, Maine, is a former US Congress candidate and retired history professor, a Board Member of Maine Taypayers United and an associate editor of the International Military Encyclopedia, and can be reached at: jfrary8070@aol.com