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.
Who will be left to defend them? As I keep posting over and Over and Over again, and will continue to post, The mindset these day's "IF YOU SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION, You're with the terrorist". Scary part is, there is NO definition of a "terrorist". It could be anyone that questions the RNC or the DNC. Forget it.... This is looking very dismal I fear!
If you don't toe the line with one of the party's in power, and Dare to speak as an individual you're a "nut ball".... It's a sad day indeed.
Can you imagine the dilemma I face from time to time? One of my closest childhood friends took a look at my column on reparations, and asked me, "How could you even think about agreeing with those white, racist, XXXXXXX's?" He then began to use plenty of other colorful metaphors to describe those of us on the Right. He stopped short of calling me an Uncle Tom or an Oreo, but I knew where he stood. I refuse to toe the line, therefore I'm persona non grata. (Mind you, he lives in upstate New York, and worships the ground Hillary walks on.)
"The Constitution itself never yields to treaty or enactment; it neither changes with time, nor does it in theory bend to the force of circumstances." - Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120
To me, 9/11 was every bit as horrible as Pearl Harbor, but the reaction from our leaders was so different.
Not a fan of FDR, but can you imagine soon after Pearl Harbor, if FDR went barefooted to a Japanese temple (I am not sure what religion the majority of Japanese are, but just as a illustration) and spoke of being tolerant and understanding to the Japanese people. Then there came a flurry of 'tolerance-speak', and we were told not to be angry with the Japanese people, it was just the leaders and military that caused this problem. Then the AG make tolerance speeches and then threats to American citizens if they were not 'tolerant'. What if the new media had daily shown isolated (and I believe that) cases of 'intolerance' and showed the same picture of a temple with a car driven into it and a temple with a broken window and denounced it as barbaric, etc. What if on any given day in the major newspapers, there were editorials and letters to the editor concerning the horrible, intolerant Americans and their attitude toward the Japanese.
On top of that, our President refused to close the borders or even protect it, suppose the head of the INS made speeches to the border patrol to 'shut up and live with it'.
If these things had happened, America would not have had the will to win the war and I do not believe we have the will to win this war against terrorism.
We gave away so many of our rights to stop drugs. I heard the same rhetoric regarding this. "If it will save one child from drugs, they can search my car, etc.", and look at how they have used and abused this. We have a law enforcement agency that is a rural drug enforcement agency. I am not sure of the official name, but they can stop you anytime and search your car. They stopped my son coming home from work late one night, and asked to search his car. He asked them why and they said drugs. When he asked what would happen if he said no, they said they would impound his car and search it anyway. Now anyone with an ounce of sense knows if you make these guys angry, they are going to 'find' something. They accused him of making drugs since his hands were stained - his is a mechanic!!!!!! He chose the better part of valor and let them search and they let him go - without an apology.
How does one go about determining who is a terrorist and who isn't?
I fear that these people you wish to get thru to will keep their fingers in their ear's (that IS of course until it happens to them or their family) Then the shock of it all will be far to real for them.
I see People every day on these threads, DEMANDING we GIVE up our liberty's, I don't see much of an Apology from them either. I see Insults hurled, Nastiness, and down right accused of being "Anti-American" if you do not assimilate to the NEW AMERICA. Your post was right on the Mark. I'm sure you'll get the typical excuses how its "for the better"
And here's the Ben Franklin quote a few of you were trying to nail down... I agree, it's a great one.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.This link is pretty interesting too...
- Ben Frankin
"The Constitution itself never yields to treaty or enactment; it neither changes with time, nor does it in theory bend to the force of circumstances." - Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120
Public Laws are enactments.. are they NOT?
God Grants Rights, NOT Government, Its not to the Interpretation of the courts what RIGHTS are, you however think our rights are granted by the powers that be and they have the "RIGHT and ABILITY" to revoke them for any "AMERICAN CITIZEN" when ever they DEEM necessary. THIS IS not at all how I read the Constitution, perhaps that is why we don't and never will agree nor see eye to eye on the matter.
While I can appreciate Neal's POV, I also understand that the world underwent a sea change last September 11th. We need new rules for dealing with grave threats to our nation. If that means classifying Jose Padilla as a combatant and holding him indefinitely, so be it.
IMO, the rule of law and individual rights are intended for those who understand them, respect them and abide by them. The history of Al Qaeda and its members demonsrates a total disregard for the rule of law, civil liberties and individual rights. When Jose joined Al Qaeda, he effectively declared war on his own country. Now, he seeks refuge in the Bill of Rights, as a mechanism for slowing down the judicial process, much as the lawyers for John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid are attempting to do. In the cases of Lindh and Padilla, we should initiate proceedings to strip them of their citizenship, then let them see what it's like to have no rights. They deserve nothing less....
The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr
by Douglas Linder (c) 2001
Never has an American trial produced such an impressive set of key players:
The defendant--Aaron Burr, founding father, Vice President (and slayer of Alexander Hamilton in their famous duel three years earlier); The trial judge--John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (and the most important justice in history);
The force behind the prosecution-- Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, President of the United States; Defense attorneys--Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, both delegates to the Constitutional Convention and among the most prominent men of the day; Prosecutors-- Charles Lee, former Attorney General, and William Wirt, future presidential candidate.
Defense attorneys--Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, both delegates to the Constitutional Convention and among the most prominent men of the day;
Exactly my point Cougar.. you're not arguing the CONSTITUTION, you give me case points and "public laws" you are not giving me the constitution. I am arguing the Constitution. I'm not trying to be testy or snotty about it just simply laying out things as I see them.
Please also note that just because something is "LAW" doesn't make it right, (Examples.. "Law's" in Germany in WWII; Abortion; Blue law's (witch in the State of MA, City of Boston it clearly states it's ILLEGAL TO take a Bath on Sundays) It was put on the books along with other "public blue laws." Does it make them right? NO, Gives more power to the Government to charge you with a crime, even if its absurd or against the constitution. )
Which is exactly my point!! Where does it end, If I myself don't know my own RIGHTS and have to rely on a person in a black robe to declare what my rights are, I'm not worthy or responsible enough to exercise FREEDOM or Liberty in the true sense of the word. That is my argument. I'm Sorry I didn't mean any offense,however at times I pull my hair out at this justification of CLEAR UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW that is running rampant this this great country
what? you mean follow the LAW? Get outa here, who woulda thunk.. Its the year 2002, where have you been we are at WAR!!! Don't you know the accused will use the Constitution as a "LOOP HOLE" we must stop that at all cost, Ta heck with the founding document, they were rantings of mad men who defied a king... They refused to assimilate to the KING for their own safety.... < ranting off/>
Even typing that sarcastically, makes me gag!! God Help this Nation!!
PS, Awesome Link, I've had that trials page on my favorites for long time, Great that you posted the link for those that can have some fascinating reading!! :)
Hardly. SCOTUS recognised that citizens of the United States can be classified as enemy combatants. International Law recognises that enemy combatants can be held for the duration of hostilities. The Geneva Convention acknowledges the fact that terrorists, saboteurs, can be held incommunicado for the duration.
Habeus corpus, in the case of any of these three assholes, has not been suspended. That means he can petition for judicial review and perhaps you guys will get your wish. He'll be charged, released on bond and who knows where we go from there?
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.