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.
Disappoint me? Oh what an underestimation of the word, Horrified is more like. I suppose when you are the Said "SKELL" you'll be sitting in your windowless jail cell pondering this conversation. OF Course any INFORMATION released by the Government will be true, No matter if it's proven or not. You will have rally cry's of < cough> American's calling for your execution, no evidence needed, Nothing will be made available to the public, your sentence is indefinite until they can compile evidence against you, proving that you will do a crime,IF given the Chance, after all if your NOT a Leftist you are declared an Enemy to the "STATE"!! LOL PU-LEZZZZ
P.S. This has Eerie comparisons to the new movie coming out Minority Report, at least from what I gather from the Movie Trailers.
What does your Doc say about this irrational fear you have of being mistaken for a member of Al Qaeda?
A bullet in the head after a brief "trial" in the field.
In 1942, we tried eight German saboteurs before a military tribunal. Two of the eight were American citizens. One was executed - the day after the verdict was read.
I don't see where that led us to "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot".
I suspect that once the full scale of number of "Americans" who are willing to perform terriorist acts on their fellow citizens is known, a lot more people will be calling for removing some of their "civil rights".
A bullet in the head after a brief "trial" in the field.
And if one of our troops had busted a cap in Johnny Jihad's head over in Afghanistan (the field of battle,) I would have no problem with it, would even pull the trigger myself.
The individual in question, on this thread, was detained by a police agency in the city of Chicago. Slightly different circumstances.
If Padillo is guilty, and I personally believe he is, why do we fear a trial?
What does your Doc say about this irrational fear you have of being mistaken for a member of Al Qaeda?
Why do you ever assume I'm a "GUY", you profiled me wrong.. Oops....
If you'd follow along with the conversation you'd see we are talking about AMERICAN'S.... Please stop trying to pull other matters such as the "GENEVA CONVENTION" Unless you also Believe that too TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTION of the U S of A. and How to Charge AMERICAN Citizens with CRIMES,ON AMERICAN SOIL!
Been to an Airport lately? Look how many people they are "SEARCHING" that fit that profile.(Al Qaeda) IM screaming because I'm "AMERICAN" and Most likely FIT THAT PROFILE.. Give me a break.. You need to fly around this country and get a dose of the REALITY you're Cheering for.
A HUGE AMEN!!!
It's because he may not be found guilty, or the government bungled his arrest and it's evidence gathering so much, that they'll look incompetent (as if they don't already in this so-called "war").
Remember, all the crap started coming out about how 9/11 could have been prevented, or at the least, seriously hampered, that the tools and agents were there, but mid-level government officials screwed it up. So what happens, we start talking about Iraq.
You know they don't want a public trial. I know they don't. To do so puts what's left of their reputations at stake. I would like a public trial. If the government is afraid to do so, then that worries me more than if Padillo is guilty.
No more pathetic than her polar opposites, which are well represented on these threads.
Loopy liberals would surrender all liberty for security. Whack-job libertarians would sacrifice all security for liberty.
Wise citizens will strive with intelligence and vigor to achieve both.
So rights are geographically dependent?
The individual in question, on this thread, was detained by a police agency in the city of Chicago. Slightly different circumstances. To you perhaps, to me the situation is worse. According to President Bush this guy is a traitor behind enemy lines waiting to kill Americans. A stinking traitor.
If Padillo is guilty, and I personally believe he is, why do we fear a trial?
For the same reason we should have feared the blind sheiks trial for the first WTC bombing. You're aware that in that trial thr government was forced to disclose evidence that we were listening in on bin Ladens cell phone? bin Laden dumped the cell phone and the rest is history. There is more evidence that was revealed as well such as the stuctural drawings of the towers. Great, huh?
I believe President Bush when he says Padilla is a skell and he should be held incommunicado, period. If it turns out he's not, then he will have to be compensated for lost time but that ain't gonna happen. Three of his buddies have already been caught in Europe.
Exactly. Although I believe Padillo is guilty of wanting to pop a dirty bomb, I doubt the little thug has the intellectual capacity to blow his own nose. But, this current fervor to abolish trials and the presumption of innocence is really beginning to worry me.
So sad. So, so sad. You better hold a candlelight vigil for him, sing "Kumbaya" with the ACLU and organize a march on Washington.
That was clinton era foolishness. The testimony should have been kept secret, as has been done often in the past. The Constitution does not state that the evidence against you must be made public domain, merely that you have the right to be faced with it, at trial, with counsel.
The Constitution really is not as much of a hindrance as many seem to think.
Posted again here
To: Kevin Curry
Well Kevin, Thank you SO much for the "lesson" into the "Government Grants rights" Mantra.. Do you Believe Rights are "Given" By Government or that Rights are Given by The Creator? If Rights are Granted by the Creator then "WHO" is ANY man (Elected, appointed or otherwise) To "REVOKE" said rights?
It amazes me that you compare People who Hold the Constitution to mean something on the same level as comic book readers. YOU DO Realize that the Constitution is a "GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK" as to "WHAT THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DO TO INFRINGE ON BASIC "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS".
Let me tell you something Kevin, You need to go get a crash course lesson in to what it actually means to be an AMERICAN, You know... INDEPENDENT.. FREE.. Liberty.. Seems to me that you take what this country was founded on as a bunch of "nutballs" who dare they not think of "everyone's safety". Shame on you for your total lack of Respect of the Constitution, Shame on you for attacking anyone that wants to PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS, Shame on you for cheering on the enablers of the destruction of the Constitution.
71 posted on 6/18/02 9:58 AM Eastern by Japedo
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.