A Tale of Two Trials

Allow me to set the scene..  You’ve just come home from an 10-hour shift at “Joe’s Donut Holes.”  You’re still a little high from the road-rage buzz induced by a 17 year old whippin’ a whistle-tipped Subaru through the gridlocked interstate of your All-American city.  You toss some leftover meatloaf in the microwave, crack a Coors Light, and sink into your sofa.  “Wonder what happened in those trials today?”  Flipping through the channels, you hit NBC just in time to catch Brian Williams go into detail about the latest courtroom saga captivating the nation.

The trials:

Trial #1

The first trial involves a woman accused of murdering her lover.  The gruesome nature of the alleged murder efficiently challenged the resolve of even the most primetime TV-hardened Americans.  The victim, a 30 year old man from California, was stabbed 29 times.  He was stabbed in the back, and the heart.  His throat had been slashed from ear to ear, and he had suffered a single gunshot wound to the head.  A truly horrific scene, which the defense insists was the result of “self-defense.”  The victims ex-girlfriend stands accused of first-degree murder, after evidence finally forced her to admit her role in the incident, subsequently exonerating a pair of imaginary ninjas (yes.. ninjas).  There are numerous aspects of the crime which appeal to the modern American audience, a reality not lost on the entertainment-media complex.  Every minute detail of the couples eccentric sexual proclivities was broadcast to a receptive national audience.  Each phone sex recording painstakingly dissected by an “expert.”  Each crime scene photograph less ghastly than the next.  Cable news kept all Americans informed of the latest breaking developments in the trial.  An entire television “news” channel was devoted to up-to-the-minute coverage/speculation.. complete with interviews, reenactments and satellite interviews between television hosts (journalists?) in adjacent parking lots.  No detail was overlooked.  America experienced thorough, exhaustive murder trial saturation.

Trial #2

The second trial is a murder trial.  Well, it’s not exactly a trial, but of a series of reports infrequently disclosed by the media for public consumption.  So, I suppose it’s a trial in the court of public opinion.  Also, technically it’s “murder,” but instead of a single victim, the deceased comprise hundreds of innocent men, women and children.  The defendants are only recognized as such by a small minority of Americans, despite international outcry for justice.  The murder weapon in this trial has been identified as an unmanned aerial vehicle outfitted with bombs and/or missiles.  The volume of evidence is staggering, and includes witness testimony from surviving victims in half a dozen countries.  The defense insists that the accused are innocent, and within their rights with regards to the accusation that they’re guilty of murder.  The same media that dutifully reports, and analyzes, every miniscule detail of trial #1 casually reports aspects of trial #2 with such irregularity that one is left unable to ascertain if what’s revealed is illegal, or immoral.  On the rare occasion a mainstream media personality is able to confront the defendants about the facts/events of these murders, they’re satiated by the most meager morsels of flippant dismissal imaginable.  America is left with glimpses of slaughter, and a vague sense of injustice.

For the sake of clarity, it would be helpful to focus on a single member of the deceased: A 16 year old boy from Denver, Colorado.  His cause of death was a bomb dropped from an unmanned aerial vehicle.  He was killed while eating in a cafe.  From the standpoint of citizenship, the victim in trial #1, and this 16 year old were indistinguishable.  Each is believed to have been the victim of premeditation, whether by staged robbery, or “disposition matrix” (kill list).  Both of the victims were stripped of their “right to life” by their killers, though society has only seen fit to bring the defendant in trial #1 before the eyes of justice.  Why?  If the only difference between the victims is about 15 years of age, why is there such disproportional application of the law, or morality?  The answer lies in the identity of the defendants.

The defendant in trial #1 is Jodi Arias.

The defendant in “trial” #2 is a Nobel laureate…the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces..”The most powerful man in the world”.. The President of the United States..  Barack Obama.

Save your impassioned defense(rationalization) for a few more lines.

Now, let’s set a more accurate scene.  It’s not likely that you’re putting in 10 hour shifts in the donut-mines.  You probably weren’t recently cut off by a “2 Fast 2 Furious” aspirant.  You may not be a meatloaf, and Coors Light kinda guy/gal, or even a couch slouch.. BUT I can almost guarantee that you haven’t held the thought “Hey, our President is kinda sorta just as guilty of snuffing an innocent life as this Jodi Arias woman.”

Why?