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.
Since I'm a law abiding American, I don't think there are any.
When all else fails Jwalsh Please refer to Clintoon Handbook and Democrat spin machine to Start attacking the person and leave the argument you are incapable of winning on your own Facts at the wayside. You dispute why I'm wrong with the LAW OF THE LAND, Constitution, I just posted Two parts of it to Illbay, I'm sure you can scroll up and pick apart word for word what the "LAW OF THE LAND ACTUALLY SAY'S, Please show us all Die hard Constitutionalist how we are "WRONG" LOL I wont hold my breath.
When all else fails Jwalsh Please refer to Clintoon Handbook and Democrat spin machine to Start attacking the person and leave the argument you are incapable of winning on your own Facts at the wayside. You dispute why I'm wrong with the LAW OF THE LAND, Constitution, I just posted Two parts of it to Illbay, I'm sure you can scroll up and pick apart word for word what the "LAW OF THE LAND ACTUALLY SAY'S, Please show us all Die hard Constitutionalist how we are "WRONG" LOL I wont hold my breath.
You're playing word games. The word you used was "secret" and I always take people at their word. You are either for suspending some of his rights or you're not. If you're not then he should be treated like any common criminal.
I'm 51 years old, been around a bit and I know the difference between a political prisoner and terrorist scum who killed or is trying to kill my fellow citizens. Its called nuance.
"Congress has the power to declare war, but unless they say 'Mother may I?' it doesn't count."
Instead we will be speaking Spanish, and it will all happen without a single shot being fired.
"Congress has the power to declare war, but unless they say 'Mother may I?' it doesn't count."
Please refer to my comments to Jwalsh on the previous post for that first comment, Secondly, what are you talking about?
Perhaps you should, they tell me it takes away hiccups.
You're gonna have a long wait Tom. Some Japanese were interned during WW2 and in my 51 years I have yet to be interned. Well except for those two times in Texas when I deserved it. LOL
I'm talking about the rabid hair-splitting that you "experts" on the Constitution incessantly go on about.
Ummmm? Okay, thanks for the kind words of advice, I shall remember that the next time I have the hiccups. :)
Don't you have a Middle Eastern friend who went to a gun show? Tribunal for you, amigo! See the problems that could arise?
Okay, I will admit that My nerves are becoming Short, I feel like I'm trying to Convince a Democrat that I don't want The Elderly to Die, and Starve school children. Do you understand going up against a type of Mentality, who never admits FAULT. who can ONLY POINT FINGERS.. ?? I was talking about the "LAW", I cited In past post's to both you and others, what the "LAW" said, You have NOT come back and Argued the point of what the law say's, Instead you turn a blind eye and pretend it doesn't say what it say's then accuse ME of "rabid hair-splitting", Or being A gasbag or whatever. I asked you to Argue the Law, NOT what the "government is saying" what the Law say's.
you are refusing to do so. WHY? Look, I think you Misunderstand what the ISSUE Really is. DID I vote for President BUSH, YES I DID, Proudly, I was a "BROKEN GLASS REPUBLICAN" I was like you, Until things started passing and I (with my OWN mind, heart, and soul) was QUESTIONING Is "THIS" what I voted for? NO it was not. It was NOT what I don't even think you ILLBAY voted for. I voted to UPHOLD the LAW, I voted for Lots of things to be UNDONE, Move right (EVEN IF A LITTLE) , Less Government, Because NOW I'm suffering my consequence, as are the Rest of us who are upset, we are further agitated being called "BUSH BASHERS".
I do not question the Man has Integrity, I do not Question he's a good Husband, Christian, Father,I DO however have HUGE QUESTIONS when he isn't doing what he Promised. "SMALLER GOVERNMENT, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION" I'm sorry if that steps on your toes and you perceive me as an "enemy" that is not at all the case. I support a Constitutional Republic. same as I did when I pulled the lever for President Bush, It is not My fault he reigned on his promise, It is his!! I will no longer be an enabler to People who only use the words "RIGHTS" "FREEDOM" as catch phrases, but really mean and do the opposite.
(I get it now! LOL)
Actually, as far as airports/planes, you have been inconvenienced...you haven't lost freedoms..
You don't have to fly on a plane or even enter an airport...it's just more convenient than driving cross-country.
Oh what a huge relief!!! So please tell me who's paying for all the FEDERAL SECURITY, It can't be me the Tax payer can it?
I'm sorry for each penny the Federal Gov, Spends it comes out of one of our pockets. Please never mind that fact that this new crap we have to endure at the airport now thru the "feds" is 100% anti 4th Amendment. (Not that their is a whimper nor a care about it) It is one thing to Do this thru the "PRIVATE SECTOR" it is quite another matter to open it up to more Government agent's who if they don't Like your "tone" can hold you for further questioning, They will be paid no matter what, They have no money invested if you should return to that particular Airline, Airline's can't control "how the Feds Treat their PAYING customers. You see nothing wrong with this?? I wont even get into the "they only search ordinary looking American's, they wont even Profile! LOL yeah were so safe. LOL!!!
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.