I suck at word problems, but here's a brain teaser even an idiot like me can solve: What's worth saving more: thousands of innocent people or one evil jackass?
The answer, obviously, is unicorns. But if you asked a British judge, he would choose the evil jackass.
This week, a tribunal ruled that the leader of an Al Qaeda cell that tried to blow Brits up won't be deported because then his human rights would be violated. He wasn't charged with anything, so he's free to go, but not home because he may get roughed up by Pakistan's security forces.
Now, the judge made this call despite Abid Naseer still posing a deadly threat. And there's the joke: Justice Mitting said that even though it would be "conducive to the public good that [Naseer] should be deported," the risk of him being tortured back home was just too high.
So, having to choose between the public and the fiend putting the public in danger, the judge chose the fiend. He put the human rights of terrorists above the human rights of their targets.
Now I know the defense: We can't send this man to a torture chamber. We shouldn't lower our standards because our enemies lower theirs.
But why not? If you ask me, the moral high ground is getting us killed.
These days, the War on Terror is soaked in the rhetoric of tolerance, now defined by a circus of bureaucrats struggling to find the correct terms for scoundrels: We want to win their hearts, while they just want to impale ours.
Now I know why British judges wear those funny wigs: So no one recognizes and beats the crap out of them.
And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobic Arizonan.