Selective Justice

A few days ago, Wikileaks, the site dedicated to exposing secrets, let loose a video showing the deaths of two journalists in Iraq 2007. The video, named “Collateral Murder”, starts with several minutes of text fluffing the situation for the reader. When the video actually starts, the casual watcher has already been told what happens is a crime, so when the event does happen the shock and indignation has been already planted. The viewer isn't looking for weapons, suspicious behavior or even reading the context of the comment made by the soldier. All that has already been dismissed by Wikileaks, who rather you notice that the American military is evil for shooting journalists and kids and little bunnies. So very, very evil.

Alas, if you are a viewer who likes knowing the truth rather than tow a narrative, you'd notice that several men in the group are carrying weapons. You'd also notice that one of those weapons is an RPG (Russian: “ruchnoy protivotankoviy granatomyot”), not something a security detail carries. The streets are empty indicating a battle is in progress or nearby. The video itself, from an Apache helicopter, is extra proof that the situation in the area required air cover. Then there's the after action report (emphasis mine):

We remained above the engagement site while Bushmaster sent ground forces to the site. Bushmaster arrived and reported 11 x AIF KIA and found RPGs and RPG rounds at the site. We also witnessed a loaded RPG lying 2-3 blocks south of the engagement site. Bushmaster reported that the first child was wounded and pulled from the van. We were unable to determine that there were children in the vehicle and never saw any children prior to or during the engagement. After viewing the gun tape, were able to determine that both wounded children came from the van. Bushmaster immediately MEDEVAC'd both girls to FOB Loyalty for medical care.

All this points to that group of men being armed insurgents, not innocent civilians as Wikileaks wants you to think. The journalists were embedded with the enemy, without the knowledge of the military, and there was little to no way that the Apache gunner or his commanding officer who authorized the strike could of known. If the journalists hanging with the insurgents didn't want to be shot, they should of marked themselves as such with a giant “TV” taped to their vests, helmets or clothing. The same goes for the van that flew in to aid the fallen insurgents. If you want to go help folk in a war zone, you need to mark yourself as such, even if you're an insurgent sympathizer. A giant cross or crescent on your roof, or the word medical or doctor, would give the soldiers reason to hold fire. Yet, that wasn't on the van, so there was no reason to believe that the van was civilian, nor was there anyway to know the man who drove the van in had his kids in it.

The reaction of the left to this has been bloodthirsty. Condemnation as murders, trigger happy, blood crazed racists and so on. A field day on the military based on a pre-written script as instigated by Wikileaks and the left's narrative of the American military.

Now, compare this to the most recent person to be elevated to hero status on the left: Constance McMillian. The Mississippi student, a lesbian, was denied entry to her prom because of her desire to dress in a tux and because she wanted to bring her girlfriend along. The school, in my opinion, acted like a group of little vindictive school girls trying to ostricise an unwanted. The story rightly made news and the school is rightly being lambasted for its childish ways.

I have no qualms with homosexuality. I'm no expert on social justice theory or conservative social tradition or any other social things. It's not something I like to argue about. But, I cannot fathom the moral corruption of those who think Constance is the shining new hero of America while also condemning soldiers as murderers for doing the right thing. They'll support the ruling that makes prom protected under the First Amendment ("The court finds this expression and communication of her viewpoint is the type of speech that falls squarely within the purview of the First Amendment."), but they won't lift a intellectual or rhetorical finger to support those who defend that right. They won't admit that the ruling, accurate or inaccurate, says she was making a political point at a school function, but they will admit that American soldiers like the Apache crew are wrong, so wrong, for firing on armed insurgents in a war zone.

This is selective justice beyond a doubt. Constance was mistreated by the school and is being given the benefit of the doubt, as well as justice. The military was wronged by Wikileaks's bias and its vendetta, yet it is not being given any benefits whatsoever by the left. It's being given two barrels right to face with every know-nothing comment by bloggers and TV pundits despite the evidence disproving Wikileak's narrative.

Justice is for all persons not just those who fit the political agenda. Justice is for all, otherwise its just political and moral corruption.