Posted on 06/18/2002 6:07:04 AM PDT by jordan8
A two-fer from Neal Boortz.
AN ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL, DISGUSTING AMERICAN
… and there are many more like her.
This is the letter that appeared in USA Today yesterday.
Call me a naïve girl from Iowa, but I find it unbelievable that some U.S. citizens think we have to allow terrorists to use our laws to their advantage (“U.S. move sparks legal questions,” News, Tuesday).Surely the terrorists must be laughing. We are now living in a different world where terrorism is the new enemy.
Personally, I don’t care what rights are lost. If the government wants to tap my phone line, my computer or anything else, I say, go for it. If giving up my rights prevents one death, one tragedy or one more Sept. 11, it is a price I will gladly pay.
As for those terrorism suspects being held without an attorney, I say, throw away the keys. If their attorneys don’t like it, too bad.
Marianne Avery Dubuque, Iowa
My Gawd. What a pathetic American. Can you believe this? This woman doesn’t care what rights she loses, so long as the government protects her from terrorism. She’s a politician’s dream. No – it’s worse than that. She’s a dictator’s dream, a despot’s fantasy.
Marianne Avery is a disgrace to the memory of every single man and woman who has ever served in the uniform of the armed forces of this country. She’s an embarrassment to the quality of government education, from which she no doubt matriculated. In about two weeks on July 3rd she should crawl under her bed with a 48 hour supply of food and water – and a box of Depends – and not come out until July 5th. Better yet, just find her and lock her up for the Fourth of July holiday. No parades, no picnics, no fireworks. Surely we can find some reason to hold her. Is the public display of abject stupidity illegal in Iowa?
While we’re at it. Can someone in Dubuque please do something to screw up her voter registration? Put her down as deceased. It’s almost true anyway --- whatever love of freedom she may have had at one time in her life is dead.
My God save our Republic from the Marianne Averys of this world.
UN-AMERICAN TO DEFEND AN ACCUSED TERRORIST?
And now --- another person who doesn’t understand the nature of freedom and the basics of our Constitution. His name is Bill O’Reilly and he does a television show on the Fox News Network. I heard him say last night that it was “un-American” for an attorney to defend an accused terrorist in a U.S. Court.
Nonsense. Just the opposite is true. There are few acts MORE American than going into a court of law to defend the Constitution of the United States --- and that is PRECISELY what defense attorneys do.
This is basic grade school stuff --- but maybe someone can get it to O’Reilly to fill in some of the gaps in his education.
Government has one asset the rest of us don’t have. Government can use force to accomplish its goals. If government wants more money it can use force to simply go out and seize it. If we want more money we have to either borrow it or earn it. If government wants to deny one of us our liberty or our life, it can use force to do so. We cannot use force to deny someone else either liberty or life, except in self-defense.
Now – since our laws give the government the legal authority to use force to deny someone of their liberty or their life, our founding fathers thought it might be a rather good idea to set forth a specific set of rules and guidelines that must be followed before the government can act. Those rules and guidelines are set forth in our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our laws.
What is the role of an attorney representing an accused terrorist? His role is not to get the terrorist off. His role is to make sure that the government meets all the requirements set forth in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and in our laws before it acts to take away someone’s liberty or life. The criminal defense lawyer is, in effect, defending not the criminal, not the terrorist, but rather he is in court as a representative of the Constitution; an advocate for the Bill of Rights; the protector of our Rule of Law.
O’Reilly needs to think this one over a bit more.
And a democrap, no doubt.
Bung. I have used force to accomplish my goals. It is a government of, for and by the people, including her. SHE has used force.
Of course, he needs to publish a letter--which, pardon my saying so, sounds like a put-up job--wherein the correspondent allegedly says "I don't care what freedoms are lost." That's so he can make a stark contrast, make the other side sound reckless.
Well, I DO care what freedoms are lost, and WE HAVE LOST FREEDOM as a result of 9-11. Have you taken a plane lately? Notice anything different? To me, the REALLY "reckless" thing would be to insist that the Jose Padillas of the world get a "fair civil trial" and that law enforcement agencies shall not take steps to protect us because someone's phone conversation with Aunt Flo (or an illicit lover) might be compromised.
The history of this nation in wartime is that we give up certain MINOR freedoms temporarily in order to sustain the conflict and thwart our enemies.
During WWII, there was rationing of food, clothing, gasoline and just about every basic necessity. We were no longer FREE to buy at leisure what we wanted at any quantity.
Also, government agents were EVERYWHERE, working against the fifth-columnists that had infiltrated our borders, bent upon sabotage and intelligence gathering.
Funny, at the time there weren't many voices raised in outrage. Why? Because the OUTRAGE of Pearl Harbor trumped everything. WE were determined to win, and we were willing to roll up our sleeves, and make sacrifices to get it done.
Now, we're a nation of panty-waists like Boortz, who can't see the threat from outside because he's too busy living in the Clinton years.
If we end up losing this thing, however you want to define "losing," it will be for the same reason we "lost" in Vietnam: The national will is gone.
It's just too bad I have to hear all this sh*t from the conservative side. It makes me ashamed.
Or a Freeper. See the comments of Elkiejg, above.
Shortly after 9/11 Ashcroft produced an Al-Queda manual stating exactly what you stated in your above italicized passage.
Some people have short memories.
And no one gave it away more than the Clintonistas..sold it for votes...
By infecting us with terrorist/citizens the wannabe despots have put us in a real bind.
If one terrorist/citizen looses rights then all citizens loose rights..yet to not infringe on some of those rights endangers us all.
Profile terrorists.. seal the borders...arm pilots...arm citizens...if religous fronts are used
as terrorist camps...and sancturarys...deny them sanctuary.
..a big mistake in Vietnam...dont do it here. imo
The problem with this is FIRST YOU HAVE TO PROVE THEY DID IT! That is the fundamental tenet of our legal system--assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don't have a problem with not extending full civil rights to NON-CITIZENS, as they are here on sufferance--but any US citizen should be given the same legal rights as another citizen. Yes, it is a "bit" more trouble to do so, but any other course leads directly to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
And all Boortz is saying is that there is a legal process by which ones citizenship can be revoked and that process should be followed.
And now --- another person who doesn’t understand the nature of freedom and the basics of our Constitution. His name is Bill O’Reilly and he does a television show on the Fox News Network. I heard him say last night that it was “un-American” for an attorney to defend an accused terrorist in a U.S. Court.O'Reilly's been trying to distinguish himself from Rush for awhile now. Every time he does this he embarrases himself further.
Boortz is dead on in this article.
-Eric
What event would have to have happened in order for you to know who the person is that you feel is not deserving of his civil rights? Would his name and picture merely need to appear in a newspaper for you to conclude he is not deserving of his civil rights? Or would the government have to report to you that they suspected him of wrong doings in order for you to conclude he is not deserving of his civil rights.
This nation’s Constitution secured for all people a process that mankind fought and died for over the centuries; it is called due process. Does your lack of confidence in the nations Constitution cause you to conclude that it is too weak to deal with the current problems. Consider all the ramifications of what you suggest because when you speak to remove one citizen's right to due process you remove all citizen's right.
And all this time I thought you didn't have any...
If you can't abide hearing the voice of principle, stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud.
Moses, Right on the mark, As I said on an earlier thread, The amount of people on these threads lately have the notion "If you support the Constitution, YOU are with the Terrorist". It's a sad day indeed that this is the case! I expect that these same people will justify the "Police state" and want you under the microscope because after all "you must have something to hide".
Its beginning to be the case that one needs a barfbag to read anything anymore.
Your solution is far worse than reckless. Padillas is a US citizen. In that regard he is equal to both of us. If you want to strip him of his citizenship and try him in a military court, I'm good with that. If you want to treat him unconstitutionally because you don't like his crime, I have a problem with that.
Are there any other LE powers that you would like to see exapnded other than the universal phone tap?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.