Again...not a political blog, but rather a question of rhetoric, something I've been studying on my own thanks to opencourseware from M.I.T.
In the current forum of public discourse people are mulling over the recent attempt at a bombing on an airplane coming into Detroit. My representative, Candace Miller, in an interview on public radio, was irate that the young man was being prosecuted as a criminal, insisting that he should have been handed over to the military where experts could work on him with aggressive interrogation techniques (her words).
Here is the question for people who enter into this discourse. If you disapproved of hate crime legislation, arguing that it was unnecessary and that intent was unimportant, then how can you now argue that this young man should be tried as a terrorist? What points of debate would you use? Note, I'm just pondering this from a rhetorical perspective and not a political one. I know, I know, politicians don't have to be consistent, nor do pundits, but it's fascinating, isn't it? I wish the interviewer had asked this question, or better yet, I would love to hear two informed individuals sit across the table from one another and enter into a dialog (and by dialog, I mean listening and responding to one another in a calm and intelligent manner).