The GOP-controlled Senate added an amendment to the $440-billion military spending bill that would extend to spies, terrorists, and Islamic jihadists the same rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution.
In other words, our military interrogators can no longer question suspected suicide bombers and murderers of women and children without the ACLU looking over their shoulder -- ready to haul some poor enlisted man into court just because he yelled at a terrorist or hurt a terrorist’s feelings.
If the Senate had done such a despicable thing during World War II, the American people would have stormed the Capitol, tarred and feathered all who voted for such treachery, and ridden them out of town on a rail.
This evil, suicidal bill – if implemented – would expose Americans to the greatest danger in the history of our nation: The planting of explosives on our subways. Suicide bombers killing American women and children. Airline hijackings. Assassinations.
Do you realize that not a single terrorist attack has occurred on American soil since 9/11 – despite the dark, dire predictions of the political know-it-alls.
You know why? Because our worldwide intelligence operation has discovered and exposed plot after plot to kill Americans, both abroad and at home.
You may be alive today because some interrogator wasn’t too fastidious about how he got his information from some proud, smirking jihadist.
Can anyone confirm this?
If this is true, we are in worse shape than I imagined, and I'm going to start flying my flag upside down..
the symbol for dire distress..yes it is a Federal Code..
I read through your post and am for ONCE...speechless!
I have to research this. Whatever are we thinking?
Is this a way to say we are at war?...NOT!!
PING to the crew
I received the same email from TownHall.com. It's legit.
I also agree with you.
From How to Interrogate Terrorists:
...The Geneva conventions embody the idea that even in as brutal an activity as war, civilized nations could obey humanitarian rules: no attacking civilians and no retaliation against enemy soldiers once they fall into your hands. Destruction would be limited as much as possible to professional soldiers on the battlefield. That rule required, unconditionally, that soldiers distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying arms openly.Take the time to read the whole article.Obedience to Geneva rules rests on another bedrock moral principle: reciprocity. Nations will treat an enemy’s soldiers humanely because they want and expect their adversaries to do the same. Terrorists flout every civilized norm animating the conventions. Their whole purpose is to kill noncombatants, to blend into civilian populations, and to conceal their weapons. They pay no heed whatever to the golden rule; anyone who falls into their hands will most certainly not enjoy commissary privileges and wages, per the Geneva mandates. He—or she—may even lose his head...
This is not a popularity contest. To me, cost-benefit analysis says pussy-footing around with terrorists will do nothing but cause the death of more innocents. So the question is, is it more humane to provide human debris all the protections of the U.S. Constitution when it will more assuredly mean the deaths of innocents? Seems silly when you're in a shooting war and the detainees were lucky to have not caught a bullet in the head on the battlefield.
Yes, it's true. The "terrorist amendment" passed a month ago, 90-9.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1497443/posts?q=1&&page=101
The "nays":
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
John Corzine, whose state bore the brunt of the 9/11 casualties, did not vote. What a guy.