An Absolutely Disgraceful, Disgusting American

Nealz Nuze ^ | 6-18-02 | Neal Boortz

[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.

[NittanyLion]

You misunderstand me, as I fear you MISUNDERSTAND most people taking the side of the constitution. NOT one person is "DEFENDING" Members of Al-Qaeda, Not One person.

Yes, but it's much easier to make an argument against a strawman than an actual position.

[jwalsh07]

The law of the land says that Padilla is and can be classified an enemy combatant and held until hostilities cease. That you are unaware of that fact concerns me but not too much.

[steve-b]

And a democrap, no doubt.

No doubt. She definitely sounds like one:

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
  --President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

"the purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people"
  --President Bill Clinton, 1993 MTV interview

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
  --President Bill Clinton, March 11, 1993 USA Today

[habs4ever]

The evidence Bush and his team do grasp the "new threat" is his West Point speech.It will drive the isolationsist bonkers, but how else will the threats be diminished unless the US is proactive in increasing the intensity of its efforst to match the terrorists?They have rightly warned about a "next strike", which is to be expected in this new type of warfare, but prudently ignored the conventional advice of the establishment and will take the fight to those societies that create and nurture the factories of death that threaten us all.

Regime changes and nation building HAVE to be the new Pax Americana under the new asymmetric threat parameters, and some are grasping this, like Musharraf in Pakistan.Either they change, or the US will do it, and be right for doing it, so we can all have a safer world.I would think the Saudis and the Egyptians have got the word as well.

Is there any doubt that we are in for a LONG, protracted conflict that will take up all Bush's considerable abilities? It's truly a new world today and old thinking has to be discarded.Not much else matters to me but seeing that we WIN.

[The Raven]

>>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.

The problem I have is when the defense attorney invents an abstract defense since his client is guilty and it's the only option.

[jwalsh07]

You should read the link I provided because your ignorance of what is Constitutional and lawful is breathtaking.

Padilla right to habeus corpus has not been suspended though it can and might be. So at this juncture all your throwing around of communist tis and nazi that is simply reactioary crap.

[mhking]

We are going to have to live with "less liberty" for awhile--whatever that means.

Remember that statement when Hillary or Daschle or some other Dem is in charge and says "Round up all the usual suspects." You or I, nor anyone else for that matter, will be able to say a damned thing when they pick us up as part of "the usual suspects."

Why? Because the precedent has been set. As a result of Padilla's case, the Feds can round up anyone they please, anytime they want, and hold them incognito for as long as they want -- just because the President or some "unnamed source" says that we are suspect.

Welcome to the future.

[Charles Martel]

What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.

- Adolf Hitler

[Japedo]

WHO can suspend Habeas corpus? Its in the power of the CONGRESS ONLY, anything other then that is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL "LAW" Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2. Please Understand, I'm Going by what the CONSTITUTION say's, It is not my fault that people no longer seem to think that matters because a Public "law" trumps it. Constitution IS the LAW.

[CougarGA7]

Thank you. That is the point I've been trying to make. Because Padilla can be classified as a combantant then the exception layed out in the fifth amendment aplies and therefore Padilla is not entitled to the rights layed out in the amendment.

[jwalsh07]

Why? Because the precedent has been set.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but the precedent was set in 1942, Ex-Parte Quirin. I'm a blue collar schlub and even I know that.

[jwalsh07]

No problem, always willing to help out a rational mind.

[CougarGA7]

The point is that this action is not violating Constitutional Law. Aside from the fact listed in the fifth amendment. The CONGRESS made it manditory to detain suspected terrorists in Public Law 107-56.

[jwalsh07]

Where'd they go?

Adios.

[mhking]

Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2:

" The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. "

So does the war on terrorism count as rebellion or invasion? And if so, when did Congress define this as such?

[Japedo]

The CONGRESS made it manditory to detain suspected terrorists in Public Law 107-56.

A) Define "TERRORIST" would this "Public law" justify the X42 Administration for their murder against the residents at Waco?

B) Does "Public Law" Trump the Constitution?

C)That Public Law is a DIRECT INFRINGEMENT on the Constitution. Do you agree? You can not read The Constitution and agree with Public Law 107-56, they contradict each other.

[mhking]

You should read the link I provided because your ignorance of what is Constitutional and lawful is breathtaking.

You and the others here that keep pointing to the 1942 proceedings are failing to remember one thing: We were in a declared war with another nation. We are in an undeclared war with a (for lack of a better term) corporate or terroristic entity. We can win this without compromising our liberties. I'm not saying turn Padilla loose. Just charge his sorry butt with treason. It's just that simple. Throw in a contempt charge, and you've got him tied up in knots indefinitely. The effect is the same, but you have not thrown the country into what amounts to a Constitutional crisis.

[Japedo]

So does the war on terrorism count as rebellion or invasion? And if so, when did Congress define this as such?

I'm Sure they will find some sort of "PUBLIC LAW" that say's they don't have to disclose this Information based on National Security. LOL!

[mhking]

I'm Sure they will find some sort of "PUBLIC LAW" that say's they don't have to disclose this Information based on National Security. LOL!

You're probably right. Everyone keeps ignoring the basics though. All I've been saying is that as opposed to taking the easy way out of this (and I'll admit, it's very tempting to toss every/anyone affiliated with any known entity into the klink), that we need to move more thoughtfully. This kneejerk "Just grab'em" notion will come back to bite us in the collective a$$ -- hard.

I am sure that the other folks here don't want a President Hitlery (gag!) to grab us all as soon as she gets in office, simply because we've been on FR for years lambasting and ridiculing her.

[steve-b]

All that was done in that case was to change the mechanism of due process (from civil trial to military tribunal). No attempt was made to suggest that the government didn't have to prove guilt at all.