Posted on 09/09/2008 1:29:02 PM PDT by andrew roman
Kettle meet pot.
Senator Barrack Obama is talking constitutionality – which sends the short hairs on the back of my neck to attention and awakens the restless butterflies in my gut. He launched an attack against Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her position on the so-called rights of terrorist suspects, referencing Palin’s comments in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last week. She said (referring to Senator Obama):
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?
Obama’s response:
First of all, you don't even get to read them their rights until you catch 'em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you've got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take 'em out.
Obama sees himself as defending the Constitution as he goes after Governor Palin, supporting the issuance of rights to terrorist suspects because, as he puts is, “we don’t always have the right person.”
Hold on a moment.
Is Senator Obama then assuming here that Osama bin Ladin is a terrorist? What criteria is he using to make that determination? How can he reach that conclusion without affording bin Ladin fair representation as outlined in the Constitution? How could he want to "take out" bin Ladin without granting him his Constituional rights?
And if I am being obtuse here, then allow to me ask the question the other way. Wasn’t Sadam Hussein a terrorist? Or, at the very least, the leader of a state that sponsored terrorists? Didn’t we "take him out?"
So, where's the problem?
Of course, it would have been interesting for someone to point out that Senator Obama supported the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which is unconstitutional.
Nice to meet you, Mr. Kettle.
Democratic Party : US Constitution :: Nazi Party : Versailles Treaty
Ah, I see the left hasn’t abandoned their
“prosecute, don’t go to war”
stand with regard to terrorism.
Once we “get Bin Ladin”, they will declare the WOT over, and want to get back to expanding their socialist state.
Obama doesn’t know jack about the Constitution, and sure as hell doesn’t respect it.
No one who can twist it around to “justify” abortion and reverse discrimination can appreciate what a fair and great document it is.
Case closed.
Who exactly are the “nuanced” ones when it comes to the War on Terror?
Democrats believe it begins and ends with Osama bin Ladin. Republicans understand how far-reaching, deep-rooted and complex the war really is.
Remember how “nuanced” John Kerry was in 2004? He was so nuanced, no one knew what the hell he was saying. Yet, he was one of the “get bin Ladin and we win the war” types.
How brilliant.
Amen.
Figuring out what Kerry stood for was like nailing jello to a wall.
Obama IS John Kerry.
Like most dedicated Marxists the Obamessiah sees the US Constitution as a tremendous inconvenience.
“My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”
Who cares about reading Osama bin Laden his rights. He supposedly got 72 virgins waiting anxiously to greet him. What are we waiting for.
The Constitution is just a nuisance to Democrats. They call it a “living breathing document” or just plain ignore it when it gets in their way. But even worse is when they make stuff up and say it’s in there (”right to privacy” ring a bell?) or twist the words around to make it suit their needs.
e.g. “Freedom of Religion” becomes “Freedom FROM Religion,” the right to bear arms becomes a right for only militias, a 19th century civil rights amendment becomes a right to choose to kill a living human being, and being executed after being read your rights, put on trial by a jury of your peers, going through many appeals, then drifting off to sleep and dying painlessly is “cruel and unusual,” even though just about every civilization since the dawn of man has had the death penalty. Doesn’t sound too cruel, OR unusual...
Thanks to the left, you can ask anyone about “separation of church and state” and they’ll tell you it’s in the Constitution. When I told a friend of mine it wasn’t, he said it must be in the Declaration of Independence. He and so many other average Americans are constantly led to believe these things, rather than the truth, that this phrase comes only from an obscure letter written by Thomas Jefferson decades after either document was written and/or ratified.
It’s easy to get away with breaking the rules, when you can change them on a whim and nobody knows you’re doing it...
Nuancy Boy 2.0
“First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ‘em.”
Actually, if the military catches them overseas they don’t have their rights read to them, nor need them.
“First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ‘em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”
Why then did Obama resist the wiretapping of international phone calls when there was due cause to do so?
He is handicapping the FBI from actually identifying and capturing them.
He and his fellow Dems in reality believe that ant-terrorism is a law enforcement matter, not a weapons control issue.
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.