Advertisement

Posts tagged with Murder

Was Benghazi Murder?

One of the most disturbing aspects of the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi is the similarity of the situation to one of the most famous murders in history,

Most people have probably heard of the romance story of Israel's King David and Bathsheba. Fewer are aware of how David got rid of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite.

To summarize the story: David saw Bathsheba bathing and decided to have a brief affair with her and got her pregnant. He tried to cover up his role in the pregnancy by having her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite recalled with the hope Uriah would spend some time with his wife so he would appear responsible for her pregnancy. Uriah's code of ethics prevented him from having sex with his wife while his comrades were still in combat.

David then issued orders for Uriah to be placed in the middle of a battle and have other soldiers withdraw so he would be killed.

It has been alleged by those in Benghazi at the time of Benghazi attack on the consulate that they were ordered not to try to rescue U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the others in the consulate. Such orders would normally seem unlikely considering the fact that Viet Cong attack on the American embassy in Saigon in 1968 was part of the reason President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection. The capture of the American embassy in Tehran was one of the reasons President Jimmy Carter lost his reelection bid.

Any order not to mount a rescue effort to prevent an al Qaeda victory could be construed as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- the Constitutional definition of treason. American forces quickly retook the American embassy in Saigon in 1968. President Carter launched an ill fated rescue effort to rescue personnel at the American embassy in Iran. Obama and Clinton had personnel available to attempt a rescue effort. Why weren't those forces used?

Normally American presidents would be expected to do whatever was necessary to protect the lives of American ambassadors. Why did President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fail to protect Ambassador Stevens? Were they too dumb to recognize the possibility al Qaeda would take the consulate? Did one of them or someone else high in the administration want Ambassador Stevens, or someone else at the consulate, to die for some reason?

Ambassador Stevens wasn't married, so the motive couldn't have been the same as the motive for killing Uriah. Perhaps Stevens was connected to a scandal that hasn't been uncovered yet. I'm aware that there are rumors that both Stevens and Obama are homosexual, but don't know if the rumors are true.

I don't have any answers, only questions. Congress needs to consider the possibility that the Benghazi incident was used by someone high in the Obama administration to kill Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the consulate. It would also be possible the intended victim wasn't at the consulate even though someone in Washington thought he, or she, would be.

Reply

Jay Leno and Other Ignorant Jury Bashers

One of the my favorite things on Jay Leno's Tonight show is the Jaywalking segment when he has people on the street demonstrate what they don't know. Those with the worst answers can win an opportunity to compete as a Jaywalk All Stars.

When it comes to understanding America's legal system, Jay would easily make it as a Jaywalk All Star.

What Jay and other jury bashers don't understand is that American law prohibits a jury from finding a defendant guilty unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors are required to base their decisions on the evidence presented in court and prohibited from seeking the opinion of talk show nitwits about how they should vote. Those who know too much about the case before the trial or have formed opinions about the case are not supposed to serve on the jury.

The jurors who voted "not guilty" in the Casey Anthony trial were doing what the law required them to do as were the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial.

The prosecution claimed that Casey Anthony deliberately used duct tape to smother her daughter Caylee, yet failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee died from being smothered by duct tape. That failure to prove how Caylee died meant there was reasonable doubt about Casey deliberately killing her daughter and the law required the jury to vote "not guilty" regardless of what jurors might have wanted to do.

In the O.J. Simpson trial the prosecution claimed that the killer wore a certain pair of gloves. When those gloves were shown to be too small for O.J., that meant there was reasonable doubt that O.J. was the killer. As Johnnie Cochran pointed out in rhyme "if it doesn't fit, you must [by law] acquit."

Jay sometimes refers to the Robert Blake case while ignoring the fact that the prosecution failed to connect Blake to the murder weapon. That failure meant that someone else could have pulled the trigger and thus there was reasonable doubt that Blake committed the crime. The prosecution should have waited to charge Blake until it could prove he did it.

Those who rely on the media for information about criminal cases fail to understand that in the early stages of an investigation the government has a monopoly on releasing information and can make all sorts of claims that cannot be substantiated. Some information may be provided by government officials who don't really know anything and are passing along what is essentially office gossip. That is why people should be skeptical of any crime related information from unnamed sources. An unnamed source may want to remain anonymous because he or she is lying.

Members of media lynch mobs continue to operate on the assumption that the original information was true regardless of what may be admitted in the trial. They have already decided that the accused is "guilty, guilty, guilty" and they won't let new facts changes their minds.

I don't recall most of the false information about the Simpson murder case but I do recall one of the most glaring overstatements. LAPD had claimed that "there was blood all over the place" in O.J.'s residence. However, in court they were forced to admit that "blood all over the place" meant one blood drop here, another over there and still another way over there.
Incidentally, Casey's behavior after Caylee's death could indicate a psychological problem rather than guilt. The death of a child can have a severe psychological impact on parents. Many historians blame First Lady Lincoln's <a

Reply

Anthony Jury Reached Correct Verdict

The Casey Anthony jury reached the correct verdict. The question put to the jury wasn't did Casey Anthony kill her daughter Caylee Anthony, but did she deliberately carry out a plan to murder Caylee by suffocating her with duct tape.

The jury didn't buy the prosecutor's claim of premeditated murder and its easy to understand why they might have rejected it. When I first heard of what the prosecution was attempting to do I thought they had a difficult, if not impossible, task before them.

I could believe that Casey got frustrated because she couldn't get her daughter to shut up and covered Caylee's mouth with duct tape to keep her quiet rather than to kill her. Casey might have positioned the tape carelessly or the child might have had a stopped nose with the end result that Caylee was unable to breathe and died. I have difficulty accepting the claim that Casey is mentally capable of planning to kill her daughter by using duct tape to suffocate her.

Casey was unable to accept responsibility for her action and tried to cover it up. Perhaps she had difficulty admitting to herself what she had done.

American prosecutors suffer from a "disease" which causes them to try to present every wrongful death as premeditated murder. Perhaps prosecutors feel they get better publicity if they convict an evil killer then if they convict someone for doing something stupid.

I don't know if Casey Anthony caused her daughter's death or not, but it would be unfortunate if she will go unpunished for the death because prosecutors made the mistake of trying to turn a tragedy into something sinister.

Reply

Homosexuals in Combat - Reality Check

Statements by military leaders that there would be no problems with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones would be more convincing if the military wasn't having a problem with its male personnel sexually assaulting its female personnel.

Female veterans on a recent PBS documentary said that women were afraid to go anywhere on their bases alone in Afghanistan and Iraq because of concerns about being sexually assaulted. The Service Women's Action Network and others have filed a lawsuit to obtain military records dealing with the extent of this problem.

The main problem with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones won't be them attacking others, but others killing them because of concerns about being attacked. Some homosexuals claim that they look at other men the way men look at women. Many could interpret this claim as indicating homosexuals might attack other men the way some men attack women. .

A woman who is concerned about a sexual assault will take defensive measures such as finding someone to accompany her when she goes some place. Men are sexual predators and when predators are concerned about being attacked they may respond with a preemptive attack, particularly when they are in a combat zone where they have to be prepared to kill or be killed.

In Vietnam, the term "fragging" was coined to refer to one American killing another particularly by using a grenade. Sometimes the target was an officer who was considered overly aggressive in combat and thus a "threat" to the life of whoever decided to attack him.

I recall reading one news article about an enlisted man in a rear area who killed his first sergeant who he claimed was putting too much pressure on him.

In Vietnam I knew some infantrymen who smoked marijuana in the rear area who said they would kill someone for smoking it in the field. There was a case just before I left Vietnam of a man who was accused of killing other members of his unit for using drugs in the field.

Rape is often associated with warfare. Soldiers released from the moral controls that discourage killing may also lose the controls that discourage sexual assault.

There is the possibility that homosexuals in a combat situation might attempt rape. A more likely situation would be a false perception that a homosexual might attack. Such a perception could lead to action against the homosexual who seemed to pose a threat.

Women know that some men sometimes misinterpret an act of friendship as an indication of sexual interest. An act of friendship by a known homosexual could also be misinterpreted, with potentially fatal consequences.

One of the motivations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was the murder of homosexual PO Allen Schindler by shipmate Airman Apprentice Terry Helvey in October, 1992, while Schindler was awaiting discharge for homosexuality. Helvey insisted he killed Schindler for "bossing him around" when he reached a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty.

The murder of PFC Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, Ky., in 1999 has been blamed on anti-homosexual sentiment, but the instigator of the killing, SPC Justin Fisher, may have been motivated by jealousy because both were interested in a transsexual female impersonator who was undergoing treatment to become a woman.

The killing of Seaman August Provost while he was on guard duty at Camp Pendleton was believed by some to have been because he was homosexual. An aunt even suggested that he was killed by another homosexual to keep his sexuality secret. However, the official Navy report stated that the suspect PO Jonathan Campos, who committed suicide while in custody, killed Provost because Campos was on a crime spree.

Incidentally, Federal Judge Virginia A. Phillips violated the Constitution when she ruled against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Constitution explicity assigns the powers to raise, regulate and direct the military to the legislative and executive branches. Congress and the President are free to exclude anyone from the military based on physical traits, personal characteristics or for engaging in behaviors that the Congress or President believe might interfere with military operations.

The President even has the authority to deny freedom of expression to those who wish to serve in the military as President Barack Obama did when he fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making negative comments about Obama. The courts can only intervene if punishment for military infractions involves something like imprisonment or death.

Reply