[Blood of Tyrants]

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.

And a democrap, no doubt.

[Elkiejg]

I usually like listening to Boortz - he's not afraid to call a spade a spade. BUT since he's been on this rant of "protecting" the rights of terrorists - US citizen or not - I've turned him off. 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.

[Illbay]

As usual, more knee-jerking from the whacked-out fringe.

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.

[joesnuffy]

We give our "Citizenship" away much too cheaply..and hence the rights that go with it...

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

[E Rocc]

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

[Pokey78]

Just remember your old Libertarian saying Neal: Everything will be alright if they just legalize drugs.

[CougarGA7]

The problem I have is the fact that so many people seem to want to extend Consitutional Rights to foriegn nationals. I don't think that the framers of our Constitution were thinking of British soldiers rights when they wrote it. The Consitution DOES NOT apply to those who are not citizens. As for these individuals who are citizens of the United States and are being apprehended for conspiring to commit terrorism, we are not violating their rights if we hold them without charges. The fifth amendment clearly states that due process does not apply in Military matters. I feel that if there is sufficient proof that these people are "combatants" then they fall under military jurisdiction and the rights of due process does not apply.

[Destructor]

The United States Constitution should only apply to terrorists with U.S. Citizenship. As for the foreign born terrorist- f*** 'em! Feed 'em fish heads!!

[Teacher317]

If giving up my rights prevents one death, one tragedy or one more Sept. 11, it is a price I will gladly pay.

Her programming has worked wonderfully... the "if it saves one life" mantra strikes again. She obviously answers Patrick Henry ("Is life so dear... as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?") in the affirmative. I'm glad the WWII eneration wasn't this naive.

[1Old Pro]

Interesting. I thought it was goint to be about Bill Clintoon.

[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.

[Charles Martel]

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

- Adolf Hitler

[billsux]

I did a search on her name on Google, after using USA Today's Lycos engine, primarily to see if I could find this letter on USA Today's web site (couldn't, apparently it was only in print). Anyway, I did find this... Another USA Today letter from Ms. Avery that the People's Daily in CHINA reprinted Now unless there are several Marianne Averys - from Dubuque, Iowa - running around making a habit out of writing to USA Today, this is the same person. Maybe she should have stayed in China if she doesn't have a problem with government taps...

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.
- Ben Frankin

This link is pretty interesting too...

[Kevin Curry]

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 . . .

No more pathetic than her polar opposites, which are well represented on these threads.

Loopy liberals would surrender all liberty for security. Whack-job libertarians would sacrifice all security for liberty.

Wise citizens will strive with intelligence and vigor to achieve both.

[maxwell]

An Absolutely Disgraceful, Disgusting American

OK when I saw that title I was afraid somebody was posting "I am a bad American" AGAIN...

[Japedo]

PING!!