Friday, December 08, 2006

Wretchard again

Wretchard, an Fil-Australian blogger who owns "The Belmont Club", is one of the pro-Iraq war I read (but not as much as I used to.) And he's pro-Arroyo too.

Eto sabi niya sa Subic Rape trial:

Despite all the talk about how conservatives are pulling ideologically even with the Left, the "activism" infrastructure gap between them is immense. Perhaps the gap is even growing. Here's how it looks from the Philippines, which I am currently passing through. Item: a US Marine Lance Corporal named Daniel Smith was convicted of rape by a Philippine judge, and three of his co-accused acquitted under a status of forces agreement. The judge himself seemed fair, though idiosyncratic, but the entire trial was attended by race baiting by the Philippine Left, which bayed for the "blood of the Americans".

I thought the victim only got partial justice. How can the other 3 US servicemen not be found guilty too? They were inside the van just like Smith was and chanted and encouraged the rapist to violate the victim. ala The Accused.

And the Dept. of Justice under Raul Gonzalez and the prosecutors did almost everything to screw up the case for Nicole. (Oh, you don't know about Mr. Noted Raul Gonzalez? He's a big joke. Google him up.)

If Smith were under the protection of the Left, he would be a "martyr" by now -- there would be "Free Smith" t-shirts everywhere -- and the entire trial invalidated under charges of racism. The reason it is not going to happen is because conservatives lack the infrastructure: the legal aid groups, sympathetic UN institutions and tribunals which can bring charges of "prejudice" or "bias" against any court in any country.

Who the FUCK cares about what the Left wants? If the guy is guilty of raping the woman, then he should be punished. Your fixation on the Left and blaming them for what happened to the US servicemen is BS and just plain excuse-making.

On the other hand, if women's groups like Gabriela did not come to the women's aid, the 4 would have been acquitted by now

Which I suspect is what Wretchard really wanted.

Besides, spreading unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories in your comments section, all I can say is, You're better than that.

And it's okay to lash out at the Left, the Commies, etc., but to root against the victim because of your hatred for everything Left is just absurd.

He was accused of participating in a gang rape, largely on the strength of sensational, leftist fueled testimony that they had all taken turns raping the woman. Now as it happens, three of the men were completely exonerated. The reason? They had nothing to do with it. And the judge goes and says that since Smith was the only person who had sex with the woman and since she was dead drunk, she had sex under diminished capacity, and therefore Smith was morally guilty. Well alright, but some lawyer may argue that's not what he was charged with.

There were enough evidence to find the 4 guilty (originally, there were 6 accused). Daniel's three other pals were egging, cheering, and applauding Smith to go "fuck, fuck, fuck!" the victim. Remember the movie "The Accused" with Jodie Foster. And you still think they're "not guilty"? They were there when it happned and did nothing to stop it.

Then after they were done with the woman, 2 US servicemen carried the woman like a pig out of the van and dumped her on the sidewalk.

Just because you got somebody drunk or the woman is wearing a tight skirt doesn't mean it's open season for date-rapes and gangbangs.

More from Conrad de Quiros:

Nicole was in no condition to have consensual sex given that she was right out of her mind from drink. Nicole struggled and resisted. The medical findings showed her to have suffered injuries consistent with forcible sex. There is no (reasonable) doubt about it: Smith raped “Nicole.”

No comments: