I just wanted to take a moment to thank the Veterans of this country's past and present wars for your service to America and the sacrifices you've made in doing so.

As we face yet another war, I want it to be known that, whether or not I agree with the war itself, our reasons for fighting it, or our government, I do support, 100%, the men and women of our Armed Forces who go to fight.  With the current military being an all-voluntary force, the members are, in most cases, people who have chosen this path out of a sense of duty or a desire to be of service, and regardless of whatever our governments motivations may be, it doesn't change the motivations of those courageous individuals.

In ancient times, the Norse referred to their war heroes as the Einherjar, and it was believed that when the Einherjar passed from Midgard (Earth) into Asgard ("Heaven"), they would go to be with Odin in His hall of Valhalla, where they would fight each day, and feast and drink every night.  Many a horn of ale have been raised to the Einherjar over time, and among modern Norse-based Pagans it is traditional to celebrate Veterans Day as Einherjar Day.  So today I raise my horn to each and every one of you who have, will or are prepared to fight when called upon.  May the Gods grant you their strength and blessing, and may you live long to tell the tales of your service at for a great many years.  You honour us all by your service, and for that, I give honour to you.

"Even if you don't believe in capital punishment, the legislature has said capital punishment is available for certain crimes," Mr. Horan said, adding, "If this doesn't qualify for the death penalty, what does?" - Quoted in the New York Times

This is something I just have to get off my chest.  It drives me nuts to hear people, time and time again, justify seeking the death penalty by saying "If this doesn't qualify for the death penalty, what does?".  In fact, it's probably my second least favourite phrase (my #1 least favourite being "If I can do it, anyone can", but that's a whole different rant). 

How many times have we heard this tired cliche trotted out by some vengeance-minded prosecutor, cop, or politician to help try and placate those who don't support the death penalty, but might be able to be swayed in this particular case.  The problem is, of course, that just about any case horrific enough to be eligible for the death penalty will also be horrific enough for people to use as an example of the "if this case doesn't justify it, what does..." cannard.  

This is yet another example of why we, as a society, need to decide if we're going to view the death penalty as a form of justice, which I still think is a very shaky proposition, or if we're going to acknowledge that it is social vengeance - something that, while not necessarily serving the purpose of justice, sure does feel good on a primitive level.

Trying to use the example of a particularly heinous case to support the "death-penalty-as-justice" theory actually tends to defeat the purpose.  For the death penalty to be just, it would have to be applied consistantly under an objective set of standards, rather than subjectively and on a case-by-case basis as it is now. 

Report: Teen sniper suspect confesses. FAIRFAX, Va. - John Lee Malvo, the 17-year-old accused in a series of sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, has admitted to police that he was the triggerman in some of the killings, The Washington Post reported Sunday. [USA Today: Nation]

It's interesting to note that the reported confession came during the 7-hour interview conducted with Malvo before he was appointed a lawyer or a guardian.  It's also interesting that the only crime the police have specificed on which he admitted to being the triggerman (though they've indicated that he confessed to others as well) is the murder of Linda Franklin, the FBI analyist who was shot in the parking lot of a Home Depot store in Virginia - the state preparing to prosecute him.

Perhaps it might be cynical to suggest that this "leak" might be an intentional attempt to taint the jury pool before its even selected, but given many of the other irregularities of this case, it is a possiblity that has to be considered.  The confession is likely to be thrown out in court.  It was obtained by police in an interview with a minor, without a lawyer or guardian to help him protect his own rights, or to help verify a voluntary waiver of those rights.  With the information coming out now, it's likey that most anyone who could be called for jury duty in this case wil have heard about the confession prior to the start of jury selection, and will be able to take that into consideration, even if its never formally presented as part of the case.

I have to admit, generally I tend to lean more toward the feeling that suspects are given too many rights, and that too many cases are thrown out because of technical errors that occured while the law enforcement professionals thought they had a valid foundation for taking the actions that they did.  Mistakes happen, and it bothers me when someone can exploit a good-faith error and turn it into an acquittal.  In this case, however, there have been too many questionable actions to think that they all are innocent mistakes. This latest one just adds to the tally, and makes it that much more difficult for Muhammad and Malvo to get a truly fair trial.

I know that for many people, guilt is a foregone conclusion for these two.  Hell, I'm even pretty well convinced that they did it. But that doesn't mean that they don't deserve - and aren't entitled to - fair treatment by our justice system.