No. of Recommendations: 94
... it was in that much-heralded speech at the Republican convention that Palin tossed off a line I found more disturbing than anything unearthed about her since. It got a predictably enthusiastic response from the keyed-up partisan crowd.

"Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America," said Palin, and then, referring to Barack Obama, quipped: "He's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Quite apart from the cheap distortion of Obama's position, typical of most campaign rhetoric, this is a classic lynch-mob line. It is the taunt of the drunken lout in the cowboy movie who confronts a sheriff barring the prison door - He wants to give 'im a trial? It is the precise sentiment that Atticus Finch so memorably sets himself against in Harper Lee's masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird, when he agrees to defend a supposedly indefensible black man charged with rape (falsely, as it turns out).

I wonder if Palin really believes her own position on this. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was just a speechwriter's idea of a great applause line, perhaps she hasn't fully thought it through. The sentiment is on the wrong side of a deep principle, one that we have long honored in this country, that has to do with basic fairness, the rule of law, and ultimately with standing up intelligently to terrorism.
...
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080921_The_Point__...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Law Enforcment is NOT the way to fight terrorism. Law Enforcement is reactive and depends on a crime to be committed first in order for there to be a prosecution of said crime. When it comes to terrorism, that means the terrorists have to act first, THEN be prosecuted for it. That means they have to KILL PEOPLE first, then we can go after them.

That is not an option IMHO. It is exactly the WRONG way to prevent terrorism.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Law Enforcment is NOT the way to fight terrorism. Law Enforcement is reactive and depends on a crime to be committed first in order for there to be a prosecution of said crime. When it comes to terrorism, that means the terrorists have to act first, THEN be prosecuted for it. That means they have to KILL PEOPLE first, then we can go after them.

So we leave it up to the lynch mob? Seriously, WTF? So the police don't ever go after a criminal until they know they have commited a crime? Maybe, maybe not, but they do investigate alligations of conspiracy to commit crimes (which is often a crime).

So do advocate suspending the bill of rightd to fight terrorism? Do you advocate using ellicit means by authorities to find these "terrorist" and give them a good hanging without trial? What do you propose is the answer.

MM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So do advocate suspending the bill of rightd to fight terrorism? Do you advocate using ellicit means by authorities to find these "terrorist" and give them a good hanging without trial? What do you propose is the answer.

Enemy combatants outside of the United States are not subject to the Bill of Rights, so that is a moot point. It has been a tenant of national security policy for, well, ever... that intelligence and military actions are not subject to the same restrictions as law enforcement. In other words as long as you aren't criminally prosecuting suspected terrorists, you don't have to worry about the evidence being thrown out on a technicality. That is a court action, and these people aren't going to be put on trial. Putting them on trial, then, would be a bad idea. It handicaps what you can do to stop them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wonder why Obama doesn't promise end the Patriot Act and also, to restore FISA?

Oh how I wish he would.

Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Colovian consider the entire sequence of events.

A) In some kind of operation our agents encounter suspected terrorists overseas.

B) Some of them are killed. We may have angered an erstwhile ally (Pakistan) but we don't have a rights problem.

C) Some of them are captured. We hand them over to local authorities. No rights problem.

D) Some of the captured persons and flown to US black sites in other nations. I don't like this solution. Do you?

E) Some of the caotured persons are flown to US controlled territory. NOW WE HAVE A RIGHTS PROLBEM.

We can read them their rights as Prisoners of War (my preference) or we can read them their rights as accused criminals.

Any other approach requires violating the word and intent of the United States Constitution (which our CiC is sworn to protect ABOVE ALL OTHER PRIORITIES), centuries of case law and Supreme Court decisions, and nearly a millenium of English common law.

See the problem?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America," said Palin, and then, referring to Barack Obama, quipped: "He's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Oh what a sight it would have been if someone had shouted loudly enough to get on the air,

"You're right! F____ the Constitution!"

BG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Colovion says

Law Enforcment is NOT the way to fight terrorism. Law Enforcement is reactive and depends on a crime to be committed first in order for there to be a prosecution of said crime. When it comes to terrorism, that means the terrorists have to act first, THEN be prosecuted for it. That means they have to KILL PEOPLE first, then we can go after them.

That is not an option IMHO. It is exactly the WRONG way to prevent terrorism.

Law enforcement has been quite successful in other countries subject to terrorism.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Colovion says

Enemy combatants outside of the United States are not subject to the Bill of Rights, so that is a moot point. It has been a tenant of national security policy for, well, ever... that intelligence and military actions are not subject to the same restrictions as law enforcement. In other words as long as you aren't criminally prosecuting suspected terrorists, you don't have to worry about the evidence being thrown out on a technicality. That is a court action, and these people aren't going to be put on trial. Putting them on trial, then, would be a bad idea. It handicaps what you can do to stop them.

The rule of law is such an inconvenient thing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
D) Some of the captured persons and flown to US black sites in other nations. I don't like this solution. Do you?

Given the political situation and legal precidents I don't see any other rational course of action than this option. And, frankly, I couldn't care less if terrorists are put through this option. Killing them on the spot is a bad idea, lowers the chances of obtaining any useful intel from them. Making them disappear? No problem with that at all IMHO.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I couldn't care less if terrorists are put through this option. Killing them on the spot is a bad idea, lowers the chances of obtaining any useful intel from them. Making them disappear? No problem with that at all IMHO.


Are you talking about "Terrorists" or "Suspected Terrorists"? ...... and how do you tell the difference?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Please take about three seconds on this link to weigh in at this
well-known PBS site of NOW, with David Brancaccio: Is Palin Qualified
to Lead. Please vote..... At this time, to my horror, the
Palin-supporters are winning. That's because they are organized and
participate. Let's turn this around..... You don't have to give your
name or email address in order to vote. It's very simple.

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A new poll this week showed Sarah Palin's approval ratings nosediving -- especially among women. It's as if she had been the new guest at a long-running dinner party: at first we were grateful for the new blood and, after oft-repeated tales of fighter pilot heroism and Harvard Law achievement, delighted to hear fresh stories about moose burgers, government jets sold on eBay, boondoggle bridges rejected, and lipsticked pit bulls. But suddenly we couldn't help but notice that the house was on fire. And as amused as they were by all the new stories and new characters, the American people knew that the "Welcome Sarah" party was over. It's time to get serious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sunday-roun...

This poll found evidence of concern about Ms. Palin’s qualifications to be president, particularly compared with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s running mate. More than 6 in 10 said they would be concerned if Mr. McCain could not finish his term and Ms. Palin had to take over. In contrast, two-thirds of voters surveyed said Mr. Biden would be qualified to take over for Mr. Obama, a figure that cut across party lines.

And 75 percent said they thought Mr. McCain had picked Ms. Palin more to help him win the election than because he thought that she was well qualified to be president; by contrast, 31 percent said they thought that Mr. Obama had picked Mr. Biden more to help him win the election, while 57 percent said it was because he thought Mr. Biden was well qualified for the job.

This poll was taken right after Ms. Palin sat down for a series of high-profile interviews with Charles Gibson on ABC News.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/us/politics/19pollcnd.html...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
D) Some of the captured persons and flown to US black sites in other nations. I don't like this solution. Do you?

E) Some of the caotured persons are flown to US controlled territory. NOW WE HAVE A RIGHTS PROLBEM.
________________________________________________________________

US Black Sites in other nations = US controlled territority

Gitmo in Cuba could be considered both, of course depending on your definition of territority it could be considered neither as well.

We don't have a rights problem. Since when do non-citizens have the rights of citizens? They don't! Do illegal immigrants have the right to stay here just because they made it across the border? Do prisoners have the right to a job? A right comes with responsibility. You have the right to vote, but the responsibility to weigh to the best of your ability the person most able to do the job. You have the right to go into wal-mart and buy what you want, but the responsibility to make sure you take it to the cashier and pay for it.

What have terrorists done to deserve rights? The killing of parents so they can take the kids to be suicide bombers? The using of a mosque to hide their weapons and build bombs? Building Vehicle Born IED's to blow up hotels and civilians? The responsibilities the have shown to the American government is severly lacking... they don't have rights under our system. Now maybe if they were in Iran or Syria where such 'responsibilites' are seen as a good thing, maybe they have some rights over there.

Oh, by the way...

FDR approved the trial of German saboteurs before a military tribunal – a policy that was affirmed by an 8-0 decision of the Supreme Court, in a case named ex parte Quirin.

That is called legal precedent.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Law Enforcment is NOT the way to fight terrorism.

Well, except for the fact that it's been used in many other countrues with substantial success.

Law Enforcement is reactive and depends on a crime to be committed first in order for there to be a prosecution of said crime. When it comes to terrorism, that means the terrorists have to act first, THEN be prosecuted for it. That means they have to KILL PEOPLE first, then we can go after them.

Yeah, because it's not like terrorists ever do anything illegal before "killing people". In fact, that's why people are only convicted of murder, and never in history has anyone been convicted of, say, conspiracy to commit murder, or of possessing illegal weapons or explsoisves or of making said explosives or....

Oh, wait, you mean people HAVE been charged and convicted of such things? Really?! You don't say?

Well, gee, I guess that means that you're still correct. Except, of course, for the fact that you're not.

-synchronicity, amazed at what's passing for "thought" in conservative circles these days.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Someone tell the tool that I say thanks for the chance to vote "yes" on this poll.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I saw parts of Palin's speech in Florida today. Heavy on cutting taxes, precious little on cutting spending... a round of something for nothing for everyone!

V.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Someone tell the tool that I say thanks for the chance to vote "yes" on this poll.

How about if I thank you for letting me vote "yes" on this poll?

Thanks!

Crocket
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But don't you understand, the critics don't want to prevent terrorism.

They want America to lose the war against it.

It's not simply a difference of opinion as to the means used.

America is evil, according to these folks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No don't you understand?

International terrorists taking a break on the Riviera are entitled to be Mirandized before being secretly injected with conotoxin by a bikini-clad double agent with her trick fountain pen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Law Enforcment is NOT the way to fight terrorism. Law Enforcement is reactive and depends on a crime to be committed first in order for there to be a prosecution of said crime. When it comes to terrorism, that means the terrorists have to act first, THEN be prosecuted for it. That means they have to KILL PEOPLE first, then we can go after them.


Not necessarily. If law enforcement gets intelligence on a potential crime the can take steps to prevent it. OTOH, an entirely military option is kind of overkill as there no defined combatant since terrorists don't wear uniforms or form battlelines so going after terrorists can lead to tons of collateral damage and you really aren't sure if there are terrorists where you are striking anyway. To fight terrorism you need a combination of intelligence, military and law enforcement options.

herb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Law enforcement has been quite successful in other countries subject to terrorism."

*************

Those "other countries" DON'T HAVE THE U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS.

The stupidity of the leftists is getting to be mordantly ridiculous.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Please take about three seconds on this link to weigh in at this
well-known PBS site of NOW, with David Brancaccio: Is Palin Qualified
to Lead. Please vote..... At this time, to my horror, the
Palin-supporters are winning.

************

It's a public opinion poll. Why is it horrible that the public doesn't hate Palin? Are public opinion polls only useful to you to the extent they support your own preconceived prejudices?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And 75 percent said they thought Mr. McCain had picked Ms. Palin more to help him win the election than because he thought that she was well qualified to be president; by contrast, 31 percent said they thought that Mr. Obama had picked Mr. Biden more to help him win the election, while 57 percent said it was because he thought Mr. Biden was well qualified for the job.

So why did the democrat party pick obama then?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Law Enforcment is NOT the way to fight terrorism.

Well, except for the fact that it's been used in many other countrues with substantial success.

******************

but which are NOT subject to the U.S. bill of rights.

It's like being in a room filled with babbling idiots.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So why did the democrat party pick obama then?


because a hell of a lot of people voted for him

herb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LOL.

It's now 55-43% in favor of Palin.

Thanks for giving me the op to vote "yes."

By the way I have no idea whether she is or not; I did it simply to spite her opponents.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But he's obviously far less qualified than Joe Biden, who has 35 years in the Senate to Obama's 2.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
D) Some of the captured persons are flown to US black sites in other nations. I don't like this solution. Do you?

Col Given the political situation and legal precedents I don't see any other rational course of action than this option. And, frankly, I couldn't care less if terrorists are put through this option. Killing them on the spot is a bad idea, lowers the chances of obtaining any useful intel from them. Making them disappear? No problem with that at all IMHO.

The number of nations that will work with us on this illegal solution is on a glide path to zero.

NATO nations are completely embarrased to admit any involvement in this. There is a network of volunteers (call them cyber-terrorists if you wish) that is tracking black flights by recording airplane id numbers and publishing them on the internet. It becomes harder and harder to act illegally and remain invisible.

What you propose is that we make league with the few remaining rogue nations.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
At this time, to my horror, the
Palin-supporters are winning.


You're going to think Stephen King wrote election day '08. ;~)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

You're going to think Stephen King wrote election day '08. ;~)


Sarah Palin uses her witchdoctor to raise an army of zombies to vote in Ohio and Florida turning the tide in the election? ;)

Derek
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
D an army of zombies

I'm not going to give Sarah all the credit for this one, but they are already out there.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
but which are NOT subject to the U.S. bill of rights.



Most European countries give their citizens rights simular to those found in the bill of rights. Ever been detained by a British cop? They read you your rights when arrested, but the phrasing is a bit different there. Minus the right to bear arms, the British people have very simular rights to those here in the US.

It's like being in a room filled with babbling idiots.


Yeah, I know the feeling. Like when people gripe about something so small as the bill of rights getting in the way of finding "bad guys". Or the fact that throughout history, people have given up freedoms for a little security just to find out they let the wolves right into the hen house (OK, right into the highest levels of govenrment without restraints).

If you think the bill of rights is so bad, just say so. Don't beat around the bush, just say it.

MM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Their citizens? What about enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields?

Enlighten me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Their citizens? What about enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields?

Enlighten me.


We all know what happens to ones America picks up, so how about you tell me what they do. I believe many of them have been following our lead, but the Europeans are kinda getting tired of following our unitry deciders lead. Maybe I am wrong. Got a link to better inform me.

MM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wonder if Palin really believes her own position on this.

So either she's a fascist or a demagogue, correct?

--JC
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement