Thursday, March 23, 2006

Boston Legal: Closing Arguments

When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out "NOT" to be true, I expected the American people to rise up. They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorist suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidently, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people even seem to notice. . . .

The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest. Stop for a second and try to fathom that.

At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you’re wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

What is this text? A speech held at an anti-war rally? Musings of a Democrat senator? The rantings of an irate leftie blogger?

No, these are the closing arguments of the character Alan Shore in a fictitious legal case, taken from the glossy legal eagle drama series "Boston Legal". Now, I've never had the opportunity to watch this show and probably never will but judging by those few minutes, "Boston Legal" appears an unlikely vehicle for criticism of the Bush Government and its policies. It's a highly glossy production, including cutesy (well, hot, actually), female defendant and well suited and immaculately coiffed male lawyers, prosecutor and judge. I wonder what the American Right think of what they must see as "entertainment pollution"?

Watch the clip here.

, , ,


At 7:09 PM, Blogger Timmer said...

Gert -

Yeah, this could actually happen in an American courtroom (NOT!).

So the solicitor's inaccurate rant against the government is his legal defense of a woman who is withholding her taxes (supposedly in protest)? Quite the liberal wetdream - but little reality here. The judges abused gavel would have been broken half-way through this babble.

Of course, this scene well supports my argument that Hollyweird is off the charts to the left, wouldn't you say?

At 1:50 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Is "Boston Legal" a Hollywood production?

At 2:19 PM, Blogger Gert said...

And what does your comment say about the "Land of the Free"? In the given context a solicitor for the defence would be perfectly entitled to use these arguments here in the UK. Would he do so? Depends if the guy is prepared to stand up or not.

As regards the "liberal wet dream", I doubt if "Boston Legal" is a "liberal" show at all...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home