Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Absolutely Disgraceful, Disgusting American
Nealz Nuze ^ | 6-18-02 | Neal Boortz

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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last
To: CougarGA7
Thanks for some sanity - based on facts - in an otherwise overheated, emotional debate.

I object to home-grown terrorists (citizens) being treated as simply common criminals and given all kinds of legal protections that could endanger others. I'm already weary of the constant arm-waving warnings about how we're all going to be living in a police state if the government attempts to find and arrest terrorists, would-be or otherwise, and treats them as the security threats they really are. Clinton isn't president any more. Government needs to be watched but the hysteria is unnecessary.

The anti-government knee-jerking is predictable from Libertarians but the frantic ranting about rights being lost forever is over the top. Your comments were a breath of fresh air.

41 posted on 06/18/2002 9:14:32 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
And as far as holding him indefinitely, that falls under Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

"The Priviledge of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Perhaps you can answer a few questions for me Cougar.. when did the EXECUTIVE BRANCH become the CONGRESS? Did congress suspend our Habeas Corpus and if so,have you been traveling the United States? How are you getting around the Suspension of Habeas Corpus...???

42 posted on 06/18/2002 9:18:54 AM PDT by Japedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Yea, that Due Process thing is overrated anyway....

L

43 posted on 06/18/2002 9:19:59 AM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg
This seems very short sighted. Changing the freedom and repealing rights changes the flavor of America. Change the flavor too much, and it no longer tastes like America. Is safety worth this?
44 posted on 06/18/2002 9:24:44 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I think you grasp very well what an asymmetrical threat al Qaeda poses to all of us, and your analysis is bang on.It takes a willpower and intensity of effort as equal as theirs to defeat them, which Bush and Rumsfeld have demonstarted so far.Now, about those that can't see the threat as clearly, well....
45 posted on 06/18/2002 9:32:00 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
We were governed by better people then ...

So there it is, the REAL reason "civil libertarians" are wrinkling their brows in concern.

FWIW, I don't consider FDR to be "better people" than we have today.

46 posted on 06/18/2002 9:39:57 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
The whiners are primarily pretend conservatives who don't understand the constitution they claim to be protecting. Since they line up consistently with the RATS to squawk about the President, I assume they are really undercover RATS or Libertarians (thus, I expect no rational thought merely pious platitudes.)

It will take thousands of additional deaths before these morons wake up and realize that we are faced with millions of murdering, maniacal, morons following Mad Mohammed (piss be upon his head.)

Americans are too spoiled to make any sacrifice and will likely demonstrate just that by returning hundreds of RATS to office this fall making the job of our president virtually impossible.

47 posted on 06/18/2002 9:40:52 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Japedo
...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,...

Sounds right to me. If you don't consider al-Qaeda to be a military force arrayed against us, then you're still living in the Twentieth Century.

Now, I happen to believe that in the end the courts will rule on this, and they will rule CORRECTLY.

If they say "nope, this isn't happening," then I'll be satisfied. If--as I expect--they refuse to take such a case in deference to the Executive's constitutional role, which has been historically demonstrated, then I'll be satisfied there, as well.

I suspect my faith in the wonderful system our Founders provided is what separates me from the Chicken Littles such as those on this thread.

48 posted on 06/18/2002 9:43:40 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Well, you can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to accept, and which you'll ignore if you want to, I guess.

Fortunately I trust the courts to handle this with a bit more aplomb.

I guess that's why the Justices aren't hanging out on the "bogey-man" threads on FR, whining.

49 posted on 06/18/2002 9:45:10 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
"Asymmetrical threat" is right. This is a very new kind of enemy, and they have so far taken full advantage of our free society to wiggle in and blow the h*ll out of us.

The main problem is that the cretins here and in the media look at this wild-eyed goobers like Lindh or Padilla or Moussaoui, and just don't see the threat. To them, they're just small-time gangsters so why are we "suspending the Constitution" just to handle them?

I know that Mr. Bush has a BOATLOAD of competent advisers, legal and otherwise, helping him negotiate the minefield, and I am confident that in the end their view will prevail.

Meanwhile, those who equate a group of people who've already proven they don't mind snuffing 3,000 of our citizens at one whack, with "unpopular" political dissent within our own country are just deluded beyond my ability to comprehend.

50 posted on 06/18/2002 9:48:32 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Japedo
Took me a while but I found it. The authority for the Executive branch to detain suspected terrorists is required under sec. 412 of Public Law 107-56. The authority is granted to the Attorney General. The detainee my apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus but it must be applied for. Looks like the ball is in Padilla's court.
51 posted on 06/18/2002 9:53:27 AM PDT by CougarGA7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
This is the law of the land concerning scum like Padilla, Jihad Johnny and Mooseforbrains.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact no matter what Boortz and his flock think.

For all the Boortz followers I ask this question:

If Padilla is treated as a common criminal with all the rights you think he deserves what is to stop him from whispering in one of his pals ears the location of a dirty bomb? Should he do that and the bomb explodes killing and contaminating untold LOYAL Americans will you guys be knocking on the door of the relatives explaining why Padilla was entitled to his unalienable right to kill their kin?

52 posted on 06/18/2002 9:59:55 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
Boortz makes some good points now & then, but let's not forget he's a libertarian and not a conservative. There are some things he advocates that are just dopey and weird!!!

Heck yes, what if some of his notions and ideas are not yours or my cup of tea. Who cares if some of his statements are spot on correct.

No matter! Let's brand him with the scarlet letter and be glad that we're far and away better than him and his ilk.

53 posted on 06/18/2002 10:01:12 AM PDT by Hoosier Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
Yes, I am well aware of the terrorist attacks that occoured on that day, but how did that change the constitution? Our system of government? The laws of due process? Our entire history?

You must read and learn the mantra chanted by some freepers to "understand" why we must sing and skip happily as we're led down the garden path to the stockade.

The founders are spinning in their graves.

54 posted on 06/18/2002 10:06:15 AM PDT by Hoosier Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg
As far as I'm concerned as soon as anyone, citizen or not, takes up arms or plots with terrorists against this country - they lose any "civil" rights they have as a citizen. This is a new world we are now living in since 9-11. The radicals are using our freedoms against us and some are too stupid or blind to see this.

"Those that sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither" - I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the Franklin message is the same.

Your ranting is the same sort of ranting that McCarthy and his cronies gave us in the 50's. The founding fathers built the Constitution in such a way as to deal with this sort of crisis. No, they did not forsee terrorists, but they did forsee sedition and rebelious persons who would act in a way contrary to the interest of the nation as a whole. They forsaw traitors, and they developed a way to deal with them.

A charge of treason could easily be brought against Mr. Padilla. The associated delays would tie his butt up in jail for many moons while the lawyers argued about it. A simultaneous contempt of court charge would take care of the search for information that the government is using him for. If we don't do this properly, it will put us all at risk. Not only that, if we continue down this path, the bad guys have already won a round. It becomes a matter of winning the war, but at what cost? We can win this without compromising our liberties, our principles or our freedom. My biggest question is do we want to? To look back at your answer, I can safely say that you don't.

55 posted on 06/18/2002 10:10:44 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: Illbay
NL: In what figures to be a permanent state of "heightened alert", are you in favor of suspension of civil liberties?

IB: Okay, so vote these guys out of office and vote for Hillary! or Tom Daschle. They'll make things right for you like Democrats ALWAYS try to do. [snip] You just can't get out of the habit of bashing the government over everything--even when it's doing the job it's constitutionally SUPPOSED to be doing.

Hmmm...is that a "yes"? I'm unsure, since you resorted to personal attacks instead of simply answering the original question.

57 posted on 06/18/2002 10:13:14 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Sounds right to me. If you don't consider al-Qaeda to be a military force arrayed against us, then you're still living in the Twentieth Century.

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. I see People rushing to "give up liberty's" To appease their safety faster then I ever have imagined. I have some Questions Perhaps I can better understand where you come from.

Can you please cite for me some past cases where "FREEDOMS" were revoked that were "REINSTATED"? There is No "TIME LIMIT" on this war...How many Years are we going to be "suspending the constitution" for the Better of safety?

Take the Airports right now, Why is it only the elderly and children are being subject to the "searches"? If you fit any sort of "profile" you are free from being questioned for fear of "lawsuit" If you're an average American, you must comply or you have something to hide. I don't understand this mindset.

How come actions are not being taken to shut the borders down until we can find the said "infiltrators"?

The American people are the one's that suffer, not "AL-Qaeda"

Lastly, Al-Qaeda Goal is to DESTROY this country, That is their Goal. What is this country? It is compiled of INDIVIDUALS who have "RIGHTS" like no others. Once the Government steps in and say's we don't, who's won the war.. What part of AMERICA is left? What's left to Defend if not our FREEDOM? All it takes to DESTROY this country is to DESTROY what we live by, the CONSTITUTION, the more its Destroyed the more they are cheering, The more I'm crying, The more I'm even more sick with the justification of it.

For the record, I had True Faith and belief that President Bush would restore this country from it's leftist movement. It is more "left" now then it EVER got under x42.

Now all of a sudden, I find myself at odds with people I 100% agreed with during Election time. I Find myself in a Horrific Alice in Wonderland, Where nothing as it seems. I was under the Impression that we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, I fear that is not the case, It is now.. SUPPORT THE PARTY or you're an Enemy. Brother against brother.. is what this has evolved into

This being said, As An AMERICAN it is my DUTY to DEFEND the constitution, Name call all you wish those of us that choose to Hold on to the last fibers of a Dieing Constitution. Call me A "crazy radical" a "Libertarian" or any other word that fits today's PC mold. I don't care that I'm shunned for my POV, I'm an Individual and NOT any "WAR" "Political party" "President" "Terrorist" WILL ROB ME OF THAT! I will NOT surrender my GOD Given rights to appease all the pant-wetters who don't have enough faith for us to protect ourselves.

58 posted on 06/18/2002 10:13:18 AM PDT by Japedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
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.

Wisdom.

59 posted on 06/18/2002 10:14:06 AM PDT by Pentagram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
If Padilla is treated as a common criminal with all the rights you think he deserves what is to stop him from whispering in one of his pals ears the location of a dirty bomb?

It's called "solitary confinement." It's called "SuperMax." There are plenty of ways to isolate him from the general population. You don't get a Constitutional right to that. You do, however, get a Constitutionally guaranteed right to an attorney, and to appear before a judge. Even Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh and Jeffrey Dahmer got that.

Even if we charge Padilla with treason, he will have the right to those things. Just because the charges are related to terrorist activities, doesn't exempt him from the rights or responsibilities affored and incumbent upon all citizens.

This is not Nazi Germany. This is not Communist Russia. There is no "test" that we as citizens have to perform. We cannot take the easy route out of this mess. It's harder to have to grant Jose Padilla his rights, but that is the road we have chosen as Americans. That is the road chosen by the founding fathers when they constructed the Constitution.

60 posted on 06/18/2002 10:16:00 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson