This week, New York Congressman Jerrold Naddler actually endorsed the idea of providing American criminal rights to apprehended terrorists. When confronted with the analogy that had we captured M. Atta on September 10, 2001 we would have been unable to interrogate him as he could stand on his right to remain silent, Naddler indicated that such a result is precisely the legal paradigm Naddler seeks to implement. I strongly urge his reading of Justice Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello v. City of Chicago before he next opines on the subject of terror rights. Aside from its complete lack of support in the law, the view is, on a policy level, simply suicidal.
How could anyone with a single functioning brain cell who lives in the United States of America think that we should enshroud captured terrorists, whose very wagging of war out of uniform legally justifies immediate execution under prevailing international law, with full constitutional criminal due process protections. The failure to understand the difference between domestic crime and international terror is a fundamental failing of most Democrats.
So if you liked 9.11, bring back the people who don’t think that our CIA should interrogate captured terrorists.
Oh, liberals, before you start down the line about absolute rights, consider the following scenario. Someone has a nuke in Kinnick Stadium where your beautiful little Bear is in the stands watching another Hawkeye flogging of their in-state rival from Ames and you have to decide to “read” the terrorist his rights or go right into whatever interrogation methods would produce the surest and quickest information. What do you do? That’s an easy call for me, how about you?. If you are unwilling to sacrifice your own children on that particular alter then you understand why terrorism is different. It is war against us, and waged by our enemies in a most unlawful manner at that and criminal rights simply do not apply.
Since all historical jurisprudence on the subject allows, if necessary, the waiver of habeas corpus and the mass detentions of hundreds of thousands of people during time of war. That is also why the law has developed as it has and why the liberals almost never win appellate decisions on War on Terror rights issues.
How could anyone with a single functioning brain cell who lives in the United States of America think that we should enshroud captured terrorists, whose very wagging of war out of uniform legally justifies immediate execution under prevailing international law, with full constitutional criminal due process protections. The failure to understand the difference between domestic crime and international terror is a fundamental failing of most Democrats.
So if you liked 9.11, bring back the people who don’t think that our CIA should interrogate captured terrorists.
Oh, liberals, before you start down the line about absolute rights, consider the following scenario. Someone has a nuke in Kinnick Stadium where your beautiful little Bear is in the stands watching another Hawkeye flogging of their in-state rival from Ames and you have to decide to “read” the terrorist his rights or go right into whatever interrogation methods would produce the surest and quickest information. What do you do? That’s an easy call for me, how about you?. If you are unwilling to sacrifice your own children on that particular alter then you understand why terrorism is different. It is war against us, and waged by our enemies in a most unlawful manner at that and criminal rights simply do not apply.
Since all historical jurisprudence on the subject allows, if necessary, the waiver of habeas corpus and the mass detentions of hundreds of thousands of people during time of war. That is also why the law has developed as it has and why the liberals almost never win appellate decisions on War on Terror rights issues.
10 comments:
OMG, a nuke in Kinnick Stadium?
Does that come with a communist under the bed, or does that cost extra?
What else you got to scare us with? This one is getting old.
By the way if you're wanting the "easiest and quickest information" and you think torture will get it for you, you might want to consider its history of getting you mis-information. Anything that will make the torture stop is what you may get.
If you want the truth from someone, win his confidence. It takes longer, but it pays better. I know this doesn't fit your ticking bomb scenario, but, really, has that ever happened?
The more times I re-read this post the more I find! Did you just endorse the "mass detentions of hundreds of thousands of people"?
The other day you were worrying about threats to liberty. Now you are one!
spotlight, you simply know nothing of history or threat analysis.
to deny the terrorist threat for the sake of political correctness is suicidal madness. i would prefer not to die in a terror attack.
if you don't think the jihadists would put a nuke in kinnick stadium, or the lincoln tunnel, or the Washington monument, if they could you are living in denial.
you need to read the real history of internment from WW2. the government also interecepted every international telephone call, telegram, radio transmission and item of mail in WW2. war changes everything, whether you want change or not.
So you DO believe in mass detentions and in torture, but not in habeus corpus. And since this war will go on forever, everything is changed forever.
It's the end of the Republic if you have your way.
I'm not denying any threats, I'm just not so frightened of them that I want to sell out to torturers.
Speaking of who knows what about history, you forgot to tell us when the ticking bomb scenario had EVER been averted by torture.
So in other words "As long as you are scared about a war - to hell with constitutional rights"????
Right, except that when the CIA staff guy briefed W. on the threat from Al Qaeda, W. told him "OK, you've covered your ass" and ignored it.
And when W. got the memo saying "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US," W. didn't even cut short his brush-clearing vacation.
He only hurries back to Washington for important things, like signing the Terri Schiavo bill.
desmoinesdem
First of all, I’m not one of those D’s who freak out about the idea of the government (even under W) listening in on my calls or tracking my calling patterns in trying to keep us safe from terrorists. We all need to make some sacrifices for common good and our security.
However, Spotlight is pointing out the obvious problems with torture. Are we really getting the desired results with it, is it the best way to conduct business even in an emergency? Perhaps most importantly, what is the long-term damage to our national interests around the world when we are known to condone torture? Same goes with holding people for years and years without charging them with anything, even if you don’t torture them. Makes it much harder to be the shining city upon a hill, makes it much harder to win the hearts and minds of the people - things that are our best long-term strategies to truly defeat terrorism and Islamic extremism.
A nuke at Kinnick? Who cares. I'm a Cyclone fan. I was going to go to Iowa but my test scores were too high and my parents aren't cousins.
Seriously though...Did Jerry "Grimace" Nadler have gastric bypass? I used to be afraid he would eat the microphone thinking it was a corndog.
I am Grace Lin and running for Congress against Jerry Nadler in New York's 8th District. Remember to vote this Tuesday. To find out where to go vote in New York go to http://gis.nyc.gov/vote/ps/index.htm. For more info just go to www.graceforcongress.com or http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Grace_Lin.
Best Regards,
Grace Lin
www.graceforcongress.com
Post a Comment