Posse Comitatus Ending Part 1

Great Moments in ''The West Wing'': The ending to the Season 3 Finale of "The West Wing," Posse Comitatus. Simon Donovan is shot, C.J. cries, and Leo convinces Jed to kill Shareef.

The song is "Hallelujah" by Jeff Buckley.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Posse
• Comitatus
• West
• Wing
• Hallelujah
• Jeff
• Buckley
• Great
• Moments
• CJ
• Simon
• Donovan
• Leo
• McGarry
• Jed
• Bartlet
• Abdul
• Shareef

[tdogballer]

This has to be the best tv series ever. I've watched from start to end at least four times.

[BetaArtemis]

Josh was called because he's DCoS and senior staff, so yes, he had to be in the loop to be informed, since Simon was protecting CJ.

So just because Simon was an agent, they aren't allowed to be sad?

I find your comments rather insulting and smug as if somehow just because you dealt with your loss so much better that other people have to be like you. I'm sorry to say that doesn't happen in real life, not everyone has to be like you. Sometimes people just feel for others.

[waitingforacentury]

This song was played during the funeral of my best friends father. It can still make me cry. Can't get any joy from this song anymore

[keepinlow]

Jethro, no!!!!

[gcalvanetten]

"Take him". Goosebumps!

[WillBraden]

@BetaArtemis Not to mention that Josh was shot at the same incident Donovan killed a person shooting at him. It's very likely Josh reached out to him and thanked him, at least.

[chrisbrown456]

wheres part 2 lol

[ajrnagy100]

@philWynk Thank you, you have perfectly made my argument for me. I agree, there are no moral absolutes just like this occasion whereby Sharif "should" get to go to a court however, because he cannot, they have to kill him otherwise he would have killed more. That is how the writers came up with the line "It's wrong, but you have to do it".

I was simply arguing the other side of the case so that you could see that there is a morally grey area and that the writers aren't morally retarded.

[philWynk]

@ajrnagy100 (1) "There are no moral absolutes," but there IS a moral absolute to try criminals in courts? (2) I'm arrogant to declare moral absolutes, but you're declaring one, and you're NOT arrogant?

You are incoherent. Please go study philosophy before you try making any more ridiculous claims.

Where do moral absolutes come from, in your mind? By what law is a man like Sharif a "criminal?" By what arrogance do you apply the US Constitution to any citizen of ANY other nation???

[ajrnagy100]

@philWynk I said that the arrogance was in your inability to even recognise the fact that the situation had no moral absolutes. Plus there IS a moral necessity to try ALL criminals in court and whether it be the ICC or an American military court prosecuting with conspiracy to commit terrorism. Need I remind you it was the American government who, after WW2 insisted on trials for nazi leaders.

[philWynk]

@ajrnagy100 Wow. Two side-splitting logical errors straight from the Condensed Guide to Liberal Sound Bites.

(1) No, there is neither sound basis nor moral necessity to try foreign leaders in our courts. No court has jurisdiction. It is a national defense decision, pure and simple.

(2) No, it is not arrogant to state an opinion regarding morals. If you have a contrary opinion, feel free to state it -- and prepare to defend it. Because, yes, my morals are sound. I'm not arrogant; it's a fact.