Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Don't let the science facts get in the way of your photo-op!
Last week, the Justice Department made an unusual and dramatic presentation of the "evidence" against Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber." Over the course of the press conference, there were many allegations which, if true, should have landed Padilla before a judge. Naturally, as this White House has shown, law and justice are only defined by the Executive Branch, not the Constitution.
It turns out that the entire concept of the dirty bomb Padilla is said to have planned would never have caused serious injuries. Uranium, regular uranium that is, has such a small ability to inflict radiation injuries that Padilla's bomb would have been a "dud," at least according to a nuclear physicist. Via the AP:
Well, now who would listen to him anyway? Certainly not the Bush administration, whose casual disassocitation from anything based in scientific fact is well recognized, especially by the scientific community.
Yet again, the unelected cabal has stiffled scientific reasoning in pursuit of political goals. With the Padilla case resonating recently in the chamber of the Supreme Court, there is only on reason to make this dramatic presentation. It is an attempt to skew the facts presented to the public as a means of fostering anger toward a Supreme Court decision which falls in favor of Padilla. Although, with the current makeup of the SC being identical to the 5-4 split which handed Bush his illegal victory in 2000, the likelihood of an anti-Bush settlement seems unlikely.
Everything is political.
As the tagline from No More Mister Nice Blog states so correctly,
"It's Karl Rove's world. We just live in it."
It turns out that the entire concept of the dirty bomb Padilla is said to have planned would never have caused serious injuries. Uranium, regular uranium that is, has such a small ability to inflict radiation injuries that Padilla's bomb would have been a "dud," at least according to a nuclear physicist. Via the AP:
"I used a 20-pound brick of uranium as a doorstop in my office," American nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, of King's College in London, said to illustrate the point.
Zimmerman, co-author of an expert analysis of dirty bombs for the U.S. National Defense University, said last week's government announcement was "extremely disturbing — because you cannot make a radiological dispersal device with uranium. There is just no significant radiation hazard."
Well, now who would listen to him anyway? Certainly not the Bush administration, whose casual disassocitation from anything based in scientific fact is well recognized, especially by the scientific community.
Yet again, the unelected cabal has stiffled scientific reasoning in pursuit of political goals. With the Padilla case resonating recently in the chamber of the Supreme Court, there is only on reason to make this dramatic presentation. It is an attempt to skew the facts presented to the public as a means of fostering anger toward a Supreme Court decision which falls in favor of Padilla. Although, with the current makeup of the SC being identical to the 5-4 split which handed Bush his illegal victory in 2000, the likelihood of an anti-Bush settlement seems unlikely.
Just saying the word `uranium,' the public automatically assumes, `Oh, it sounds bad,'" said physicist Charles FergusonHowever, Karl Rove has a political philosophy which led to the Justice Department presentation of evidence outside of a courtroom which specifically mentioned uranium:
Everything is political.
As the tagline from No More Mister Nice Blog states so correctly,
"It's Karl Rove's world. We just live in it."
