Posted on 06/18/2002 6:07:04 AM PDT by jordan8
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.