Posted on 11/28/2001 8:17:29 AM PST by Asmodeus
Edited on 04/29/2004 1:59:42 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It would be bad if all these wartime exigencies were not ended when the war ends. Our history, from the Revolution, to Civil War, to both World Wars, is that they will be, and with a Republican in office, we can guarantee that these powers are only temporary, and will be limited as much as possible by the news media. Someday, perhaps, we will have a President with Clintonian imperial ambitions, and then, such measures would be very worrisome, but not when they are undertaken by a good man in response to deadly threats.
I couldn't disagree more.
What we are witnessing is Mondale running on a promise to raise taxes and Dukakis driving a tank to prove he was big on defense.
Face it, the rats enjoyed a brief respite on their way to obscurity due to Klinton and his evil ability to get single woman to vote for him.
Those days are over.
Even the simplest members of the population are for military tribunals and executing terrorists.
Leahy is a subversive agent provacateur who leaked classified information and had to resign from the intelligence committee because of it.
Democrats are well on the way to self destruction, and this is just another of many more unacceptable and doomed to failure attempts by a pathetic Rat party to undermine the best interests of the nation.
I welcome the socialist Leahy and Schumer's attempt to coddle people WHO ARE TRYING TO KILL US.
I honestly cannot believe they would be so stupid as to pursue such a course of action, but then intelligence is in short supply in the Jackass party.
Brave Americans are coming home in flag draped coffins.
Leahy needs to buy some Chunky Monkey and fade away.
There are problems which nations face that cannot be solved by local governments or even state governments.
The "local" courts I have in mind for terrorist trials are the military tribunals proposed by President Bush.
Among politicians, Vermont's Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy has become the leading whiner about civil liberties. . . . On Meet the Press last week, this smugness was displayed in all its imaginationless glory. (He's probably playing back the tape and beaming to himself as you read this.) In Leahy's view, those who favor military tribunals are flying off the handle, and it's only the "voices of reason" like his own that are rescuing the country from constitutional perdition.
Generally we should be grateful for such voices. But there are moments when those who urge extreme measures are the sensible ones, and the "voices of reason" are merely casting desperately about for ways to flaunt their moral vanity. This seems to be one of those times. The belief that Sept. 11 should change nothing–which is the belief that actuates Leahy and others–does not really accord with any commonsensical approach to real life.
LOL!
They are liberal socialists, why should they exhibit common sense now?
I WANNA SEE SOMEONE MARCH IN THERE LIKE OLLIE NORTH DID WHEN HE TESTIFIED. I WANNA SEE A BUSH REPRESENTATIVE KICK OPEN THE DOOR AND MARCH TO HIS SEAT AND THE FIRST TIME A SOCIALIST LIKE LEAHY OPENS HIS MOUTH, THE REPUBLICAN CALLS HIM ON HIS OWN FAMOUS LEAK AND HIS DISDAIN FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY! NAME NAMES AND DATES! CHALLENGE HIS LIES WITH THE FACTS!! P> Sorry. End of rant. Just tired of spineless Republicans. Over and out...
Extremely important subject! Come on, Repubolicans! Blast back! Call Leahy on his callous disregard for the safety of Americans! Call him on his comforting of the enemy!!!! Call every single Demorat who does ANYTHING to support those trying to kill Americans - what they are! TRAITORS!
I sent a nasty one to one Cynthia McKinney (you know who she be) after she wrote the letter of apology to the Sheik.
While surprised that she had anybody in her office smart enough to do, the email ended up in MY Congressman's office appearing to him that I had sent it, and we have great respect for each other. He was shocked and truly hurt until we got it sorted out.
The energy should be directed to asking what in the hell has happened to the people of Vermont who he (and the other socialist Jeffords) represents and to their newspapers, and support for their opponents later on.
Great news,thanks! I've been wondering when there'd be some kind of poll.I kind of suspected that the great majority of Americans would be for military tribunals and that was also the reason there'd be no polls taken! Glad to see I was wrong.This is the first poll taken on the subject that I know of.Thanks again.
"Extremely important subject! Come on, Repubolicans! Blast back! Call Leahy on his callous disregard for the safety of Americans! Call him on his comforting of the enemy!!!! Call every single Demorat who does ANYTHING to support those trying to kill Americans - what they are! TRAITORS!"
What immunities do members of congress have for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by words or deeds?
What if a John Doe citizen publicly made the same comments?
What immunities do citizens have (free speech?) for giving aid of comfort to the enemy by words or deeds?
BTW, great name.
Here is the TRUTH, remember it, please, everyone!
THE ONLY WAY THE DEMOCRATS CAN WIN IS IF BUSH LOSES!
Every move they make is based on that fact!
Thank you, I came on board during the recount mess and believe me, I was doing a lot of praying and trusting in God during that time, thus the name. I never doubted.
True... Leahy is slimy. He is holding out on Judical appontees for ideological reasons; the hypocrite is doing what he accussed Orrin Hatch of doing (but which Orrin Hatch never really did). GOP let 90%+ of Clinton nominees go forward - today we have less than 40% of Bush's nominees confirmed and appointed to the Federal bench this year!!!! It is a disgrace!!! Sen Leahy should shut his trap about the wrongs of others and fix his own house!!
Gosh I hope so, but these hypocrite clymers usually dont make a noise unless they can get mileage out of it. I SMELL AN ATTEMPT TO "BORK" JOHN ASHCROFT! This was a BUSH DECISION, but they mostly want to go after Ashcroft as the fall guy here. It smells like a borking to me.
BTW thoughts on Tribunals ... What then to do with terrorist members of Al Quaeda, who have declared and acted at war with us, caught during our war effort to eliminate this terror group? Military tribunals is a balanced solution that is lawful, Constitutional and appropriate for this extreme situation, where we may catch non-American terrorists who have engaged in acts of war against us and against humanity. Military tribunals were used similarly before against Japanese and Nazi war criminals during WWII, for crimes less deadly than the terrorist attacks carried out by Al Quaeda. Does it really make sense to give Bin Laden, who has never lived under US law and who has avowed death to America, a trial in Federal court? Is simply bombing them or letting the Afghans kill them a better answer? Hardly, but some critics don't seem to see the irony that we are letting others "do the dirty work" because we dont seem to be willing to do it. How does that protect anyone's "rights"? Military tribunals will give the terrorists who have commited crimes the rights they need to defend themselves, while making a sensible distinction between foreign terrorists who don't recognize our law and have warred against it, and domestic citizens (and accused criminals) who live under our law. It will give the terrorists more rights than the murdered American patriot Johhny Spanno got this week.
It should ALSO be noted that the arguments against it usually strain at hyperbole ('20 million COULD be subject to this' Tony Lewis - well I COULD win the Lotto next week, but I doubt it; this will be restricted to a few cases, just as it was in world war 2). Safire said there was a danger of loss of due process; why? 'secret evidence' - hmm, does he know the problems they had in the Lockerbie and Embassy bombing cases over that? That DoJ wants that in Federal cases. There are many similar issues and problems obviated by simply declaring jurisdiction by military tribunal. And lastly, my favorite lame argument, Safire suggests bombing the bad guys in the caves instead. I dont understand how having a daisy cutter dropped on you is somehow a better example of "American Justice" than a duly appointed Military Tribunal. If we can trust our men of War to kill the War criminals, why cant we trust them to catch, try and imprison them?
Congress authorized the use of military force; there is no war. But there is a War. Bin laden and Al Quaeda have repreatedly attacked and killed Americans and American interests. These are acts of war. They themselves call it a Jihad - a war.
Horror aside, there was no armed attack, yes there was, the siucide mission was a bombing run on the WTC and Pentagon, using 747s as bombs, which had the force of many many tons of TNT. that was an armed suicide mission attack. nor an invasion. True!
Bush declared himself the single judge of terrorism, internationally. And the international community was unanimous in agreeing that this is terrorism. This was hardly a rash call by Bush, puhleeze. He's authorized himself to step into any country by labeling anyone a terrorist, Al qaeda or otherwise. Rightly so. Bush Declared War on Terrorists! We identify the terrorists, we hinder them financially, we use investigative powers, we use military powers. we will destroy the terror networks so they can no longer function and bring the perps to justice - or bring Justice to the terrorist.
Is your point that you don't trust Bush's judgement on what a terrorist is or is not? You dont think Al Quaeda is a terrorist group???
I'm with him if he wants to go after drug traffickers. drug traffickers and terrorists are 2 different things. You should be with him if he wants to go after TERRORISTS too, that is his goal. What is wrong with that? (I understand if you think some means may be flawed, but the goal is unambiguous and fully justified!!)
With that in mind it is clear that the voting population could easily vote in a demagogue who would make a full-scale frontal assault upon our liberties.
Clinton did not do this but worked his evil surreptiously through the pre-existing ideological propaganda screen erected by the Democrats. He only cared about his future not his Party's, his nation's or the world's.
All those hysterical warnings from the Sky Is Falling types that he would not leave office may become valid if someday a would-be dictator arises who has the conviction of an ideology and the belief that his country can only be saved by a stong man. But I don't see that as an immediate danger, certainly not as great as that posed by Mad Mo's maniacal followers.
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.