Brave Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 In the words of Ted Knight "The world needs ditch-diggers too" - Kilmer17 Kilmer, I don't know if great minds think alike, or you're ripping me off! See my post below from a month ago. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- posted on May-26th-2002 04:10 PM "Only problem for them in being so ****y was that the police traced the calls and found the fool with the phone. He in turn led them to the sewer where the playbook was discarded." Idiots. In the esteemed words of Ted Knight in "Caddyshack:" "Well, the world needs ditch-diggers, too." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 Yeah, racial profiling. I here that's been real popular their Navy Dave. Just kidding with ya' - I know you ain't espousing that. Anyways - I for one would have been happy if they had caught non-citizens in the US plotting to blow up the WTC again. However, had they been citizens - I would have hoped they would have gotten their day in court - rather than sit in a jail cell indefintely without charges. Its the part of being proven guilty (even when its quite apparent in some cases) that makes the system (insert your own remark ) here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 Uh-oh, are the liberals taking a harder edge? So know you're saying that Americans are the only ones who deserve civil liberties? Meanies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 Originally posted by NavyDave Now imagine its August 2k1 and word of mouth points us to 20 to 30 guys plotting to take out the pentagon, space needle LAX, Whitehouse, WTC, and other buildings of significance using airplanes. We put them in military custody just as we have padilla and how much do you wanna bet that you, the ACLU, the Arab league and the nation of our friends Saudi Arabia as well as liberals and hatas of dubba ya scream about this injustice? We need to get away from waiting until there is a smoking gun or bloody knife to go with the body before acting unless you believe we should wait until there is an almond odor in the air (ack ack *) before we react and then its too late. If they seized these folks without due process (assuming they are American citizens) you bet the ACLU would be up in arms, and so should you! Do the liberities of American citizens mean nothing to you? Forget Caddy Shack quotes, in the words of Ben Franklin "those who would give up liberty in the name of safety, deserve neither liberty or safety" If we gave up the bill of rights but were promised security from another 9/11 would you do it? I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 It's not like soldiers and cops are busting into our houses nonstop and seizing our property. The only people who are having their "rights" violated are thugs who are plotting against the US. It sickens me that anybody could stand up for them. Last time I checked, I haven't given up any rights. I can still do what I want when I want. I can still watch porno, drink the latest premium malt beverage, and bash liberals all I want. Tell me, when was the last time you were walking down the street and a cop came up to you and started beating you for no reason? When was the last time an FBI agent searched your house with no probable cause? If I had a choice between giving up a minimal amount of civil liberties (which is basically the equivalent of none at all) or having a dirty bomb set off in DC, I'd take the former. Quite frankly, I think anybody who would choose the latter is a selfish idiot who should be sent to Pakistan in a box. I can't believe that you are saying you'd rather the perpetrators of 9/11 have due process (which is just a load of bs anyway) than save upwards of 3,000 lives. Are you affiliated with Al-Qaeda by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 "It's not like soldiers and cops are busting into our houses nonstop and seizing our property. The only people who are having their "rights" violated are thugs who are plotting against the US. It sickens me that anybody could stand up for them. " Should the government have to prove the citizen is a "thug" who is plotting against the US? Too bad it sickens you that an one American believes in innocent until proven guilty. Don't worry if the government decides to "detain forever" right wing conservatives I will stand up for you too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 JackC I will lead by the hand down the road of common sense. Non of those towel heads on those planes were US citizens and it was quite obvious I was talking about them. Several were here illegally. As far as I'm concerned criminals should lose their rights when they consider doing something as heinous as this and illegals shouldnt even sniff our courts and should go straight to military tribunals period. What rights have we lost? You still have the right to be spineless and liberal as well as apologize to our enemies for our greatness The FBI should have been checking websites and chatrooms long ago for terrorists (on the record that is) and should be able to go into mosques as well as infiltrate the prison islamic groups as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 "As far as I'm concerned criminals should lose their rights when they consider doing something as heinous as this and illegals shouldnt even sniff our courts and should go straight to military tribunals period." Who decides when the proof is enough? Do you apply the same logic to Padilla? "What rights have we lost?" See above. "You still have the right to be spineless and liberal as well as apologize to our enemies for our greatness." Thanks. You still have the right to be wrong as you generally demonstrate. "The FBI should have been checking websites and chatrooms long ago for terrorists (on the record that is) and should be able to go into mosques as well as infiltrate the prison islamic groups as well." How about the FBI infiltrating your gun club or church? Is that OK? I believe Tim McViegh was quite the conservative. Do you believe in the bill of rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 I believe Tim McViegh was quite the conservative. Come on, how often do you hear about large scale terrorist attacks by white conservative males, excluding McVeigh? There are nut jobs everywhere, and using Oklahoma City as an arguement against recognizing the enemy is just plain dumb. Here in Fredericksburg, a Mary Washington College (a highly respected liberal arts school) grad who graduated with honors and was a four year starter on the women's basketball team went to Atlantic City for her honeymoon and ended up killing two tourists. 3 bullets covered in flesh and blood were found in her purse. It was later discovered that she and her husband also jacked about 30 shirts out of the display case in Hooters. Are you going to tell me that every girl who graduates from Mary Washington with honors is a murderer and a thief? You are doing exactly what you are trying to prevent, which is profiling. Back to the "Minority Report" arguement. I figured that after 9/11 the ACLU would get over this bs about how the culprit needs to have a smoking gun in his hand to be convicted. As far as I'm concerned, they are with the terrorists. Without the liberal pansy-as$ bullsh!t we had to put up with, 9/11 could've been prevented. Had we been permitted by the democrats to tap a few phone lines and arrest a few camel jockeys, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now because 9/11 never would've happened. All the liberals try to push the blame for 9/11 off on the Bush administration. But fact is, without that nagging itch that is the ACLU and the liberals the chances of 9/11 even happening would've dramatically decreased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Somebody gag me please .. keep me from getting involved .. I'm sick of agreeing with OrangeSkin so damn much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 I must say that I agree with Bill O'Reilly when he says: President Bush is making a large mistake by not asking Congress to officially declare war on terrorists. That should happen immediately so we can put to rest the debate over whether terrorists operating on foreign soil – as that Jose Padilla did – are criminals or prisoners of war. Even if you are an American citizen, if you enlist in al-Qaida or Hamas or any other terrorist group – you are a battlefield combatant and the military should deal with you. If you were to try every captured terrorist in a civilian court, then our interrogations of these killers would be open for public inspection. That would make it immeasurably more difficult for U.S. intelligence to gather information from captured foreigners whose families back home would immediately be placed in jeopardy by probing defense lawyers trying to create "reasonable doubt." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27955 I'm no legal scholar, but, for the life of me, I can't discern why the U.S. cannot formally declare war on Al Qaeda as well as their myriad aiders and abettors around the world, including, but not limited to, foreign governments. Moreover, I think the Bush administration set a bad legal precedent when they decided to (a) not strip John Walker Lindh of his American citizenship and ( not try him before a military tribunal. Bush said that the military tribunal system would not be used on American nationals. Fine. Legally revoke the American citizenship status of individuals like Lindh and Jose Padilla, and then try them before a military court for their terrorist transgressions against the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 I think this is a long-sighted versus short sighted arguement. One side is worrying about where this could lead. Another side is asking for what probably ammounts to reasonable actions to cover the now. It seems to me that Padilla should be in military custody. I agree that since we've been told that we're in a war against terrorism, officially declaring war might make things easier legally speaking. I do think that there should be a fairly high threshhold of evidence before civil rights are taken away from an American. I do value my privacy, hence the use of a psuedonym here, but I also appreciate security. If there is reason to believe I'm doing something dangerous, then law enforcement/the government should be able to wiretap, read my email, check out my library books etc., but I would hate for all private correspondence to become open information about every American at any time. Wasn't that what was so bad about the Nixon wire tapping era? That it became used for personal retaliation. Also, could we cool the name calling. The reason I have valued this board over the two years I have surfed and written here (I think it's been two years) is the exchange of ideas and the intelligence. Insulting people because they come from a reasoned ideology that is different from your reasoned ideology does nothing to lead us towards a solution... Well, at least an agreement. Save the insults for our rivals and enemies, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 There isn't a single person who would say we aren't at war with terrorism. That an official Congressional declaration has not been made is irrelevant. I agree that it would be wise to do so because then it would shut Jack up about Padilla who, if we were "officially" at war, his treatment would be unquestioned. But, it appears that since we aren't "officially" at war, panties will be bunched tightly at any perceived affront to civil liberties which, in fact, haven't been altered in any meaningful way. This I know because, I haven't had my life altered in any way. And I'm precisely the measuring stick we should apply. Nothing that has been enacted or done since Sept. 11 has had the slightest impact on my life and as a citizen abiding by most of this country's laws, that's pretty cool. Once we start to intrude on the innocent, the shrill cries for Padilla will become meaningful. But, it's an odd argument the liberal can offer here. They hate the FBI going to public meetings or visiting a library or, forbid it so, using the internet. They whine and cry about probable cause and the as a rule, support the government NOT searching Moussaui's laptop prior to Sept. 11 because no direct evidence of a pending crime was evident. Yet, only when it comes to crime against us does it seem the liberal thinks we should wait until the problem shows itself before we act and then when we act, they throw out Timothy McVeigh as some poster child for, "Now what do we do." I'm not all that confused by McVeigh. I'm not all confused by our green little friend blowing up mail boxes with pipe bombs either. I don't think the Priests raping boys in the Catholic church are born hot for teen boys or even males. But, I'm digressing. What I'm stunned by is the cry for Padilla and the danger his holding portends for all of us and how it must stop due to this incredible danger, yet, there are no similar cries to actually stop crime before it happens. Any effort to make crime fighting a tad more successful is met with, "My rights are violated." Every time I see this I think of Monty Python and the peasant who the King is telling to shut up screaming, "I'm being oppressed." You're really not. But it's funny to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 As a graduate of Mary Washington College, I can attest to the fact that most of the women (dont call them girls in their presence) are certainly capable of that crime. Especially after about 8 glasses of "Screaming Purple Jesus". Ahhh the good old days in FredVegas.. How I miss them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 "Come on, how often do you hear about large scale terrorist attacks by white conservative males, excluding McVeigh? There are nut jobs everywhere, and using Oklahoma City as an arguement against recognizing the enemy is just plain dumb." How many "exceptions" do we give out for right wing terrorists? "Are you going to tell me that every girl who graduates from Mary Washington with honors is a murderer and a thief? You are doing exactly what you are trying to prevent, which is profiling." Of course by your own logic that is exactly what we should do. "Back to the "Minority Report" arguement. I figured that after 9/11 the ACLU would get over this bs about how the culprit needs to have a smoking gun in his hand to be convicted. As far as I'm concerned, they are with the terrorists. Without the liberal pansy-as$ bullsh!t we had to put up with, 9/11 could've been prevented. " Do you not believe in innocent until proven guilty? What would you like to trade the bill of rights in for? "Had we been permitted by the democrats to tap a few phone lines and arrest a few camel jockeys, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now because 9/11 never would've happened. " This is a load of crap. If we allowed the police to randomly search all homes in drug areas we could win the war on drugs too. But victory at any cost is not the American way my friend. "All the liberals try to push the blame for 9/11 off on the Bush administration. But fact is, without that nagging itch that is the ACLU and the liberals the chances of 9/11 even happening would've dramatically decreased." Why conservatives think there can not be more than one cause for 9/11, I will never understand. Things are never that simple. I think the democrats are not comfortable with someone like Bush in charge at this time in our history. We become even more uncomfortable when the Bush administration wants to take "liberty" with our liberties in the name of security. Maybe its not the liberals who are chicken here. Are you afraid of the threat of terror to the point you would be willing to give up any of your liberties? Art: You're stunned about people being concerned when a US citizen is seized without due process in his own country? If he is guilty lock him up and throw away the key but the government is skipping the pesky proof thing don't you think? As for shutting me up maybe the Bush administration will decide liberals are a threat to the "war" and lock us up too. But don't worry they will let us out when they think its OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Jack, How many exceptions for left wing terrorists are we going to allow you to make when you continually discuss McVeigh at the exeption of more recent left-wing criminals? Further, for the better part of three decades, left-wing extremist groups have posed the greatest threat of domestic terrorism in this country. Admittedly, these threats have diminished and over the last half a dozen years or so, you typically think of the right-wing nut rather than the left-wing group as the main actor in domestic terrorism, but, attempting to make a continued play of the occasional act of domestic terrorism in this country as your main thrust is laughable. But, if you are going to make this your main thrust, you at least have to account for the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, which are left-wing groups that have been attributed with over 600 acts of domestic terrorism since 1996, making the ELF/ALF the most prolific U.S.-based terrorist groups according to the FBI. So, please don't make political an issue that would tend to be equally as problematic to your own side of the discussion. As for the government's treatment of Padilla, simply put, it's a non-issue. Treatment of American citizens during a time of war is long-held to be different than in times of peace. And as we are at war and capturing Americans who were standing against the U.S., what's happening to Padilla is completely acceptable, legal, and utterly without violation of anyone's liberties, including the most important folks in this discussion, you and me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 I must have missed when I said right wing terror is America's number one terrorist threat. America should be aware of all extremist terror right or left. Your "time of war theory" is what is laughable here. You're telling me you are comfortable with the government taking away the liberities of any citizen they see fit without evidence in the name of the war on terror? You must be kidding. This "war on terror" has been described by the Bush administration as occurring everywhere and not over until all terrorist are no longer a threat. Not unlike the war on drugs this "war" might never be "over". What's worse is some on the right are willing to give up some of our liberities in the name of being safe from terror. The sad part is the giving up of these liberities does not make us too much safer than we are anyway. Slippery Slope my friend. What's next? Will the Bush administration try to annex the Sudeten land? Maybe we could partition Poland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Speaking of Padilla... Whats this - liberal Marines? I am sure thats what will be said after reading this... Even a 'Bad Man' Has Rights By Gary Solis Tuesday, June 25, 2002; Page A19 On May 8, FBI agents arrested Jose Padilla, a k a Abdullah al Muhajir, a former Chicago gang member and convict, and a U.S. citizen. In announcing Padilla's arrest, the attorney general and the director of the FBI informed America that Padilla had been on a quest for a "dirty bomb" -- a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material, detonation of which would spread radiation over a large area. The president informed us that Padilla is a bad man and that he is classified an "enemy combatant." A month after his arrest, Padilla was transferred from Department of Justice confinement to the Navy brig at Charleston, S.C., where he remains in open-ended military custody. His incarceration without charges, his isolation from legal counsel and his being foisted upon the military should raise alarms, as should the case of Yasser Esam Hamdi, another U.S. citizen. A perplexing question: What is an "enemy combatant" in the context of these two cases? In Vietnam, I knew what an enemy combatant was. He was the fighter across the paddy who was firing at me. But Padilla hardly fits that description. One may argue that he was trained and sent to us by al Qaeda, unquestionably our enemy in the war against terrorism. Even presuming that is true (does the attorney general's assertion automatically make it so?), Padilla had no weapon, no criminal conspiracy is alleged, no incriminating documents have been revealed, and he surely was not shooting at anyone. So, how is he an enemy combatant? Yes, one can be the enemy despite lack of weapon and uniform, but what evidence can we point to in Padilla's case? Until now, as used by the attorney general, the term "enemy combatant" appeared nowhere in U.S. criminal law, international law or in the law of war. The term appears to have been appropriated from ex parte Quirin, the 1942 Nazi saboteurs case, in which the Supreme Court wrote that "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property [would exemplify] belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoner of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." But that description hardly fits Padilla; he didn't come to the United States secretly, he passed through no lines, and as a U.S. citizen he is not within a military tribunal's jurisdiction. The term "enemy combatant" is simply lifted from a Supreme Court opinion and applied to Padilla and Hamdi because it makes them sound like they ought to be held incommunicado, without charges and without representation. It is a term without prior legal meaning, manufactured from commonly used military words, "enemy" and "combatant." In the Padilla and Hamdi cases, the term seriously misleads. One must look beyond Padilla-Hamdi, the individuals, and consider the larger issues applicable to all American citizens, even those we are told are bad people, issues such as those contained in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Padilla-Hamdi should have years to consider their acts from the inside of prison cells -- if they are convicted of criminal acts in a court of law. Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners captured in Afghanistan, conversely, are non-U.S. citizens without Padilla-Hamdi's claims to our constitutional rights. U.S. constitutional protections need not be accorded foreign enemy prisoners. The Justice Department makes no secret of why it has not charged Padilla or Hamdi, nor why they are kept from their lawyers. The Justice Department wants to wring from them every whisper of information that may bear on the war, a reasonable enough goal. To charge them would require in-court arraignment, which would publicly cement their legal rights -- not something conducive to productive interrogation. To grant them a lawyer would lead to a similar informational dead end. Yet charges within a reasonable period and legal representation are what the Constitution guarantees every American citizen, bad, good or bomber. The Justice Department cannot credibly fight terrorism at the cost of basic constitutional rights. If Padilla and Hamdi may be held in isolation in the name of terrorism, with no opportunity to defend themselves, who else might be subject to similar treatment? If "enemy combatant" is an undefined criminal category invoked by government officials free of judicial scrutiny, who else might be so nominated? Finally, why is Padilla in a military brig? Is his military custody a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal law that prohibits the military from executing civilian law? The military did not investigate or seek Padilla. He is a civilian, not a prisoner of war and, enemy combatant or not, he is outside the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Nor is he in pretrial confinement, because no military trial is envisioned. What is the military supposed to do with him -- and when? Unfortunately for the image of U.S. military justice, many will presume the military can hold anyone for an indefinite period without charges; after all, isn't that what they do to soldiers, sailors and Marines? That is not what the military does, and years have been spent trying to erase that outdated image. Thanks to the Justice Department, the military is positioned to appear fast and loose with service personnel's rights. Justice has done the military no favors by saddling it with Padilla. Nor do the Justice Department's actions serve the Constitution. The writer, a retired Marine, teaches the law of war at Georgetown University Law Center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Originally posted by JackC I must have missed when I said right wing terror is America's number one terrorist threat. America should be aware of all extremist terror right or left. Your "time of war theory" is what is laughable here. You're telling me you are comfortable with the government taking away the liberities of any citizen they see fit without evidence in the name of the war on terror? You must be kidding. This "war on terror" has been described by the Bush administration as occurring everywhere and not over until all terrorist are no longer a threat. Not unlike the war on drugs this "war" might never be "over". What's worse is some on the right are willing to give up some of our liberities in the name of being safe from terror. The sad part is the giving up of these liberities does not make us too much safer than we are anyway. Slippery Slope my friend. What's next? Will the Bush administration try to annex the Sudeten land? Maybe we could partition Poland? Jack, Let's use your argument to explain where you are missing the point. Reverse it. Imagine early Sept., when your friends rejected the FBI request to inspect Moussaui's laptop. In so doing, perhaps they said "What's next? Will Al-Queda fly planes into buildings or something?" I'm sure in your mind the slippery slope here is that America will become Nazi Germany, but the outrageous ignorance of such a statement can not be forgiven or understood. The fact is, the outcome of letting folks like Padilla go is, "What's next? He'll blow up an atomic bomb in a city or something?" But, in my example, that's PRECISELY the concern. When you see that, you'll probably understand the issue more completely. We don't need some far-fetched, completely off the wall statement of where we are headed to make our point. You do. What's that tell you about the strength in the comments we are making? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Originally posted by Art Jack, Let's use your argument to explain where you are missing the point. Reverse it. Imagine early Sept., when your friends rejected the FBI request to inspect Moussaui's laptop. In so doing, perhaps they said "What's next? Will Al-Queda fly planes into buildings or something?" I'm sure in your mind the slippery slope here is that America will become Nazi Germany, but the outrageous ignorance of such a statement can not be forgiven or understood. The fact is, the outcome of letting folks like Padilla go is, "What's next? He'll blow up an atomic bomb in a city or something?" But, in my example, that's PRECISELY the concern. When you see that, you'll probably understand the issue more completely. We don't need some far-fetched, completely off the wall statement of where we are headed to make our point. You do. What's that tell you about the strength in the comments we are making? Lets use your arguement to explain where YOU are missing the point. Are you saying because some believe a terrorist could "blow up a atomic bomb in a city", although it has never happened before, we should let our government take "any" steps they deem necessary? I would also argue, although my Nazi reference was a little off the wall, your atomic bomb statement is equally "off the wall". The strength of my comments is the bill of rights my friend. I would rather die at the of the terrorists than give up my freedom. I know that might be too off the wall for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 And of course since Padilla is a US Citizen and Moussaui is a frenchman - there aren't any differences in what rights should and shouldn't be afforded them. I mean, its not like the US Constitution gives US Citizens any rights or anything. The funny thing is, despite being a non-citizen, Habib Zachariah Moussaui is being given his day in court. Padilla, who is a US Citizen, is being kept without being charged. One would think that the least the US Government could do would be to formally charge him. Is that so hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 And again, Jack, you are inconsistent in your beliefs. On one hand, holding Padilla is bad because of the reasons you've stated and the outcome could be a facist society in which all of our rights are stripped and we expand globally as some imperial power, unchecked. So, here, you are willing to see the worst possible scenario. One that has NEVER happened. One that hasn't even been offered as a possiblity. Yet, with regard to what terrorists could do, you seem to think if it hasn't happened, it could never happen. That is where you are failing here. Had we gotten into the laptop prior to Sept. 11, we'd have had an idea of what was to come, if not the precise mechanics of it. We are aware of terrorists building weapons of mass destruction, be they radioactive, biological or chemical and yet until they use them we should take no steps to assure they can't? That's what you'd prefer. You'd prefer to believe in something that no one has ever contemplated rather than the things we know are contemplated. And, we continue to get back to the essential point of things. Have your rights been violated? Have mine? No. And until they are, we are far further down the slippery slope I'm fearful of than the one you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 I fully believe it's my right as an American to be inconsistant and contradictory in my belief system. In truth, I think most of us are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 EG, I am openly critical over how the government has handled Moussaui. He should never have been allowed to step foot in an American courtroom. He should have been sent to Cuba and eventually quietly condemned. It astounds me that he is getting the treatment he is. This is a miscalculation by the Bush team here. I do not think they thought about finding Americans involved with any of this. Walker was a surprise to them. Padilla was another. In the whole of it, they should have sent all of these folks to Cuba, but, in thinking American involvement wouldn't be discovered, my guess is that the governement took the Walker case less seriously than it should have and the Moussaui case was to be a poster child case to show how fair we were. That's just my guess. As for Padilla, it seems likely to me that information he is believed to have is being used to ferret out other people potentially involved. It is a shame we didn't send Moussaui to Cuba or let the Afghan government handle Walker. But, these are mistakes we made and will have to live with. That doesn't mean we have to make another with Padilla. We won WWII by sacrificing the rights of American citizens far more obviously than we are in this war against those who would destroy us. To some, the threshold for tolerating no more harm against us was met on Sept. 11, as it was on Dec. 7 so many years ago. To too many others the threshold wasn't met. When it is, we'll finish this. Until it is, we won't. Our response to Sept. 11 could properly have been the government's response to Pearl Harbor. We could have allowed the deportation of all Muslims (like the Japenese though 70 percent were Americans) and we could have rounded them up and held them captive until such time as we were safe from the war. We haven't done that. But, that's just what we did after the last major assault on our country. Holding Padilla is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Liberal parenting at it's finest.... Hi Dad! Guess what? I'm going to jail for the rest of my life!! hehehahahherhehe :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.