Posted on 12/08/2001 6:19:20 AM PST by E.G.C.
Anyone who disagrees with this suggestion, incidentally, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
What we're talking about is going after those who are suspected of terrorist activities and putting them on trial. If we don't do this, we're gonna end up haing a lot more of these attacks taking place.
The rule of law needs to prevail in this. We've got to stop concerning ourselves with the civil liberties of those who murder innocent people and give them their just due. So many people lost their lives on 9/11. It's time to bring the perpatrators to trial.
Regards.
What, and take Kennedy away from his Johnny Walker, and I don't mean the American turncoat.
Keep saying it to yourself, that will surely defend the constituion. Talk is cheap, and people who speak up about possible Constitutional violations of MY rights are not aiding the enemy, but doing their duty. We should all support the President, but that does not mean we all need to be lock step in our opinions.
Yes Ascroft blew them away, however, you are threading on shaky ground when you start ASSUMING that that the Democrats are not patriotic and that they are Al-Queda loyalists. Just like ANY other politician, they are most loyal to themselves. If they think they can make some points with the public or at least churn up some $$ from their partisans, they will. This is true, left or right. Face it.
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.
Gee, the Dems want to take away our right to own a gun, to say a prayer in school, or to have a religious symbol on public property. The Republicans want to take away the Dems rights to have an abortion, the Libertarians rights to smoke their dope, and the Reform Party's right to be a party. Im shocked. Seems like poltical parties are more concerned about the rights of their voters than the oppositions voters. Again, Im shocked.
Who in this country has had more problems in the past with their civil liberties being infringed? Might we guess that Jewish voters having gone thru the Holocaust might be more concerned about civil liberties? The extreme left is likely to have a knee jerk reaction to this as after all they were the targets of McCarthyism, not Republicans. Also those most likely to be incarcerated are poor and black. While this is to a large extent true hecause they are more likely to commit crimes, its also true that they are less likely to have a decent lawyer. So add together jews, extreme leftists, the poor and blacks and what do you have? About half of the Democratic party. Any clearer now on why they may raise this as an issue other than they are just a bunch of commie pinkos?
Some of just want to make sure we do concern ourselves with civil liberties of Americans. Maybe you forgot but one is not guilty and thus denied their right before a trial in this Country. Questions about whether Americans would be subjected to less than constitutional conditions, are valid and proper to be asked.
I guess you think Bob Barr is an Al-Queda loyalist too?
I agree. Ashcroft's ease at calling questions of his policies treason is frightening. I can't reconcile his support for the 2nd amendment and his trampling of the 4th.
yeah, but, where would we get a lawyer if we ever needed one?
As to post #6, I do agree that we don't have to agree with our president on everything but, I'm with him and Ashcroft on this one. We're talking about over 3000 people murdered on 9/11. These terrorists aren't like you and me. They meant to do harm by their actions and they need to answer for it.
Regards.
And I might add it's not just Democrats but also some Republicans who I think are a little misinformed on the issue.
Regards.
I think we all want a fair trial for all persons charged with crimes whether it is civilian or military.
Apparently what Daschele and his gang are protesting is a trial by a military tribunal.
I believe--and correct me if I am wrong-- that our servicemen go before a military tribunal when they are charged with crimes. Should our enemies be treated differently?
Perhaps Arlen Specter using Scottish Law should defend them.
The Geneva Conventions require that any such person be afforded due process. Due process in such instance is defined, by the common law of nations and by U.S. common law, statute, and case law as a military tribunal.
This is dead wrong.
Give me a break. Bush's executive order doesn't get anywhere near close to applying to Demonrat voters, except for any al Qaeda members in this country illegally who managed to cast an illegal vote.
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.
Actually, I'm not so much in favor of shooting them as I am of tying them to stakes, heaping rolled copies of the Constitution around their feet and setting fire to the whole sheebang.
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.