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.
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.
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.
Conveniently, one of those is rights is having guilt proven in court, so I guess I can say that you are a terrorist and then you won't complain when they lock you up without due process?
Please describe how the world became "new" after Sept. 11. 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?
Saying that 9/11 created a "new world" is like saying the constitution is a "living document". Well, one single event does not scrap everything.
"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.
How does one go about determining who is a terrorist and who isn't?
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....
Don't you have a Middle Eastern friend who went to a gun show? Tribunal for you, amigo! See the problems that could arise?