Posted on 12/08/2001 6:19:20 AM PST by E.G.C.
HOWDY FREEPERS
Well, I think we've finally figured out where the Democrats stand on this issue and it sure isn't on our side.
Attorney General John Ashcroft rightfully and unapologetically put them in their place with those infamous remarks at the hearing when he said that those who were complaining about the terroists being put on trial were in fact giving aid and confort to them.
And he's right, folks. It's quite obvious the Democrats by what they're saying and responding to Mr. Ashcroft are giving aid and confort to the enemies, the terrorists. He gave them a good talking to on Thursday during those hearings. The media knew that their Democrat buddies were being exposed for what they are and that's why they cut away from the hearing after Mr. Ashcroft spoke.
This is the same party that wants to do away with our consitutional rights. Apparently, they seem to be far more concerned with the civil liberties of these terrorists than they are with the safety and secuurity of our country. They don't seem to have a problem with violating the constitutional rights of their detractors but let our side put these terrorists on trial and all of a sudden they have a cow.
I think I know why the Democrats and their pals in the Republican party are acting this way. These are obviously criminal elements that have done wrong and got away with it in the past by buying influence and they know that there are criminal elements like this who knowing that this party is soft on crime but tough on their detractors are taking sides with them and representing them in Congress. It's very clear that we have criminal elements like this working togheter to try to undermine the rule of law and turn this nation into a mobcracy run by criminals which punishes detractors and dissenters.
I'm sure you're going to hear Attorney General Ashcroft portrayed in a negative light by the established media if anything is said about him because they know full well that the truth is out about the Democrats and the people they take sides with. Clearly, something is very rotten to the core about Daschele, Leahy, Kennedy and the like. They are not as angelic as the press would like us to think.
The Geneva Conventions require that any such person be afforded due process.
Well, if you have any experience with the Executive Branch, you'll know that 'due process' is any official process: obviously, in this case, the due process is to be shot out of hand.
I agree with you that bureaucrats in the Executive Branch are enamored of their power and tend to intimidate and coerce we the people.
However, 'due process' is a concept primarily associated with the Judicial Branch, and there the situation is the same--judges tend to love to intimidate and ram their personal agendas through by means of their official process, which all too often is no where near synonymous with fairness.
Due process tends to mean in practice that you are afforded an opportunity to present your case (not adequately in many cases) to a judicial official; there's no guarantee in practice that the judicial official is going to conduct the hearing fairly.
I disagree with your assumption that due process under Bush's executive order will be to have the al Qaeda members shot out of hand. I think they will be afforded proper due process by the military tribunals. Rush has documented that the conviction rates of similar military tribunals are lower than those for our federal court system!
I personally think most should be executed after being tried, but I somehow and unfortunately doubt that this will happen in today's PC environment. Just imagine what the terrorist huggers like Daschle, Kennedy, Leahy and a lot of TaLibertarians that post here would do?
Except for the uniforms the jurors wear, there simply isn't anything in common between UCMJ procedures and what's been suggested for military tribunals. Under the UCMJ a defendent has a right to an open trial, his own defense attorney, a unanimous verdict before the death penalty can be imposed and a right to appeal through the civilian courts. NONE of this applies to the proposed tribunals.
Thanks, everybody for your posts on this subject. It's time for E.G.C. to fix his supper. Keep on freeping with each other about this issue.
Regards.
True but it has the same effect on that constituancy from an emotional basis as mere discussion by the Dems of developing a registry of gun owners has on some of us.
"True but it has the same effect on that constituancy from an emotional basis as mere discussion by the Dems of developing a registry of gun owners has on some of us."
I fail to see the logic here. You agree that Bush's executive order has no substantial effect on Demonrats, but a registry of gun owners would substantially affect us. It makes sense if we get emotionally upset when Demonrats are threatening us with action, but here the Demonrats are getting emotionally upset with an action that poses absolutely no threat to them (unless they are posturing for the illegal al Qaeda vote--can't discount that possibility).
As much as I respect Bob Barr, I disagree with him on this issue. I do find it funny that he has become the Left's "token" conservative. Just like the Dems pull Caroline Kennedy out when they need a boo-hoo moment, they pull out Bob Barr when they need "See Bob Barr is on our side."
The defining moment will be in this latest attempt at connecting gun control with terrorist acts. This will identify all of those in DC (Legislative and Executive) who are in a power grab and exploitation mode and those that are truly concerned about terrorism, period.
Any objective person (who wants to be objective) knows gun control had nothing to do with 9/11. Most terrorsts, I would guess, get their arms from illegal arms dealers, not a private transaction between to private citizens at a gun show.
I dont think you are trying to see the logic but I will try it again, a little differntly. But first, how would a registery of gun owners have a substantial impact on us?
As I see it, a registry of gun owners has no substantial and immediate impact on us unless the government then uses that information in a way thats not currently allowed by law. The data could be accumulated from existing records without forcing anyone to actually register. It would be automatic. After 25 years, most guns would be registered, if they were sold legally. Am I in favor of this, no I am not, primarily because at some point in the next 25-50 years, the US is goign to elect another Bill Clinton.
Similarly all the stuff that the Dems were bitching about in regard to Ashcroft doesnt affect them unless the target is changed and our acceptance of "rounding up" the arabs, leads to acceptance of rounding up the jews, poor blacks, or the "commies" (sorry, Progresssives). For both sides, it comes down to whether you buy the "slippery slopes" argument that the pols rear to increase contributions.
We would have to get off our butts and register our guns--i.e., we would actually be forced to do something. What the Demonrats are currently bellyaching about requires absolutely nothing from them as it affects them in no substantial way whatsoever.
...all the stuff that the Dems were bitching about in regard to Ashcroft doesnt affect them unless the target is changed and our acceptance of "rounding up" the arabs, leads to acceptance of rounding up the jews, poor blacks, or the "commies" (sorry, Progresssives).
No one has even come close to suggesting that we round up the Jews, the blacks, the progressives, or anyone else. There are a whole lot of ifs that need to be imposed before anyone can make an argument along these lines. I'm not interested in delving into wholly unrealistic fantasies.
Hand gun confiscation in this country is also unrealistic. Its not going to happen in my lifetime.
I do hope that you are correct and that we never live to see handgun confiscation imposed upon us by the federal government. Isn't it true, however, that effective confiscation has occurred in some municipalities by prohibiting possession of a handgun (and in some cases any kind of firearm)?
However, I confiscation doesn't have to occur for my argument to hold. Gun registration, and example you brought up, would impose upon us by requiring us to register guns. Bush's executive order imposes absolutely nothing on the Demonrats who are bellyaching (unless they are non-citizens and members of al Qaeda). I believe you have just helped prove that handgun confiscation (an abridgement, in my opinion, of my Constitutional protections) is almost infinitely more likely to occur than is some citizen's civil rights being infringed in any way by Bush's executive order.
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.