Pale Horse, Pale Riders

"When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, 'Come.' I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him…" - Revelation 6:7-8ff

Remember Geoffrey Fieger, Jack "The Dripper" Kervorkian's attorney during the snuff battles of the '90s? He doesn't have anything on George Felos:

The attorney for a Florida man who had his wife's feeding tube disconnected on Friday is calling on New York Senator Hillary Clinton and her Democratic colleagues to help ensure that the woman's starvation continues until she dies.

Complaining about efforts by congressional Republicans to have Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, attorney George Felos told a press conference yesterday: "I want to say to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Tom Harkin and the - Patrick Leahy and the Democratic senators: Don't do this to Terri Schiavo again."

Pardon me for asking, but don't do what to her again? Feed her? Keep her alive?

"To have her feeding tube inserted by a subsequent act of Congress before she dies would be a horrific act upon her body," he claimed.

Horrific: "Causing horror; terrifying." How is not torturing Terri Schiavo to death "horrific"?

Orwellian, isn't it?

And, regrettably, he appears to have a lot of like-minded company.

Felos praised Senator Ron Wyden for blocking one version of a Senate bill crafted to save Ms. Schiavo's life, saying he made a "valiant effort."

To that "valiant effort" was added today another by Wyden's House counterparts:

House Republicans, seeing Congress as a last hope for brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, failed during an extraordinary Palm Sunday session to pass legislation aimed at prolonging the Florida woman's life.

Once Democrats refused to allow the measure to go ahead without objection, Republicans began scrambling to bring lawmakers, who had just started their Easter recess, back to Washington.

Majority Republicans called a recess after the four-minute session and said they planned to meet as early as one minute after midnight on Monday — if they get at least 218 of the 435-member House to attend.

Well did Captain Ed observe that, "It seems that some Democrats - not all, as some had agreed to support this bill - have come squarely down on the side of euthanasia."

(And are getting quite a few laughs out if it as well.)

Felos appears to be well aware of that fact:

But he urged voters to pressure Clinton and other Democrats to keep the starvation process going:

"I'm going to say again and again to the constituents of Kerry, Clinton, Leahy, Feinstein, Boxer: Terri Schiavo's life is in your hands. ... You write these senators, you call them."

Felos said Democrats who allowed a Senate vote on a milder version of legislation crafted to save Schiavo should be "ashamed."

"Wear your shame for what you did and atone for it, because to trample on [Terri's] rights again would be abhorrent," he railed.

That feeling of grotesque surreality is creeping back into my conscious mind again. You know, the kind that simultaneously raises the hair on the back of your neck and makes you sick to your stomach.

"Terri's life is in your hands"? Wha[BLEEP]? The Three Horsemen are trying to terminate her life. And at the current juncture they're succeeding. This statement is utterly senseless to the context in which Felos makes it. It's like he's trying to dismember the very integrity of the language along with Mrs. Schiavo herself.

"…trample on Terri's rights"? How about her right to live? That's the right being trampled, folded, spindled, and mutilated, the upholding of which Felos describes as "abhorrent."

"It is cruel and inhuman to say to a patient who says I don't want to be artificially fed to remove her feeding tube, have her enter the death process and then start life support again."

Terri Schiavo has never said any such thing. And the Three Horsemen can't prove that she ever did. It's just "serendipitously convenient" heresay on the scumbag husband's part that can never be corroborated.

But if Felos wants to avoid "cruelty and inhumanity," he and his asshole client could simply stop trying to kill Terri and transfer custodianship to her parents. But then he wouldn't get to keep his wife's payday, would he? Cripes, hasn't Mr. Schiavo ever heard of embezzlement?

Pledging to save Schiavo's life on Friday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called Mr. Felos "the personification of evil." I'll second that motion, along with a great many Republicans in a position to do something about it:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay pledged Friday to hold Florida state judge George Greer in contempt of Congress for ignoring a congressional subpoena for Terri Schiavo's testimony, saying, "No little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress.""The Congress will pursue this, if we have to hold him in contempt of Congress," DeLay told radio host Sean Hannity.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist echoed DeLay's sentiments:

"Federal criminal law protects witnesses called before official Congressional committee proceedings from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness’ attendance or testimony."

"More specifically," said the Senate's top Republican, "the law protects a witness from anyone who - by threats, force, or by any threatening letter or communication - influences, obstructs, or impedes an inquiry or investigation by Congress.

"Anyone who violates this law is subject to criminal fines and imprisonment," Frist said. His comments appeared to be directed at Florida state judge George Greer, who brazenly defied the Enzi subpoena on Friday and ordered Schiavo's starvation to commence.

Judge Greer could be in deep doo-doo:

Though legal experts disagree, Georgetown Law professor Paul Rothstein said the Schiavo subpoena was within the purview of Congress' authority.

"I think Judge Greer is making a legal mistake and is vulnerable," Rothstein told Newsday. "Provided that Congress is making legitimate investigations for making law, they have the power to seek evidence."

Once again begging everyone's pardon, does this travesty not scream out the need for federal protections against such practices? It's been more than a little dizzying watching this decade-long crisis suddenly metastasize like it has, but I doubt anything else would have been as effective in raising public consciousness both about the brazenness of the death subculture and its twisted lies to obfuscate the unthinkable, and the shocking degree of tyrannical overreach to which judges on every level in this country have descended. It definitely puts yet another imperative on the need to purge the judiciary of robed tinpots who think themselves not equal with God, but superior to Him and thus entitled to usurp His rightful monopoly on matters of life and death.

Andrew McCarthy cuts to a very practical chase on NRO today, especially for those people who are discomfited by the feds jumping into this heretofore state matter: Since Florida state law specifically outlaws what Judge Greer has ordered, why can't he be arrested and prosecuted just like any other common criminal?

If a person is brain dead — meaning, in layman's terms (which are the only terms on which I understand the concept), for all intents and purposes dead but still respirating by artificial means — there would seem to be little doubt that a judge is empowered to discontinue the artificial means. In such an instance, the judge (and whoever pulls the plug) is not intentionally causing death or pain. Instead, death has already occurred, and it is merely the artificially supported functions that are being terminated. But, as noted above, that is not the Terri Schiavo case. She is alive; someone has to do something affirmative and intentional to snuff out that life and cause her death. That affirmative act began Friday afternoon.

But by what right? Where does it say, under Florida law, that a judge has the power to authorize the commission of felony violations of the law? A judge manifestly had no power to tell Michael Schiavo and the hospice that they could feel free to shoot or hang or over-medicate Terri to death. Why in the world to we think he had the cognate power to permit a torture?

Prosecution, furthermore, is an executive function, not a judicial function. If criminal laws are being violated, the state authorities charged with enforcing the law have the power to bring charges. Why shouldn't that be done here? Why shouldn't Florida Governor Jeb Bush, among others, be using his bully pulpit to demand that it be done? We know this woman is being tortured and abused. Even if you want to pretend that this was what Terri wanted, "she asked for it" is not a defense to a charge of murder or torture. Even the people saying that it is Terri's "choice to die" do not have the temerity to claim openly that it was her choice to be tortured.

A court has no power to order torture. If we start thinking about what is going on in Florida as what it is, a crime, rather than as the execution of a lawful order, law-enforcement authorities should be able to halt it forthwith. Indeed, they have a duty to do so. They should be able to issue grand-jury subpoenas, including a subpoena demanding production and preservation of Terri's body for evidentiary purposes. And they should have the discretion to charge anyone responsible for violations of the criminal law — including the judge if he blatantly exceeded his authority. [my emphases]

Of the Three Horsemen, Judge Greer is arguably most culpable, because he's the one that wrapped a dubious legal veneer around this atrocity, and confirmed its dubiousness by his brazen defiance of Congress two days ago. He's a hemlocker and, dammit, he's going to impose his own views, even in direct violation of state criminal law. But, of course, only for Terri's sake, and in courageous defense of a "right" that not even captured Islamist terrorists "enjoy."

Mr. McCarthy sums it up thusly:

It is time to ask: What is the legal rationale for the judicial allowance of torture in Terri Schiavo's case? If there isn't one: (a) Why is it happening, and (b) Why isn't someone in handcuffs?