An inconvenient truth, to be sure, but everyone is entitled to the same rights, and in particular, even the nastiest scum-suckingest dirtbags this side of the Khyber Pass.
I know it doesn't sound right, but that's the bottom line. We don't get to choose, on the basis of sympathetic and emotional reasons, who is entitled to avail themselves of their rights under the Constitution. That's because those rights are, in the words of the Founding Fathers, "endowed by their Creator." [see: The Declaration of Independence; Fifth & Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, etc.]
Yeah, I know, it doesn't sound fair. But if the government can, sua sponte, decide who is entitled and not entitled, then they aren't really rights, are they? More like privileges bestowed upon children who do their homework before supper.
So, even when such scum-sucking dirthbags like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are, after criminal investigations by foreign countries, captured by foreign services in a non-war zone, and turned over to the United States for interrogation and trial in connection with their various crimes, then at that point he is entitled to a fair trial under our Constitution. That's the breaks.
That's our Constitution and those are our laws. If you don't like it, then go live in another country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Spoken with the conviction of a true liberal who has no idea what he is talking about. If what you saying is true, why are other terrorists being sent for trial before military tribunals?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, these military tribunals were set up by act of Congress after Eric Holder's law firm sued to challenge the original version of the military tribunals set up the Bush Administration. Does Holder have a duty to disclose that he was a partner in a firm that represented many of the savages pro bono?
In any event, there is no precedent for bestowing rights under the US Constitution upon enemy combatants. During WWII, FDR had German saboteurs captured on US soil tried before a military tribunal and executed within weeks. Lincoln did the same thing with Confederate spies captured in the North. Moreover, KSM did not wear a uniform and targeted civilian targets, which make him an illegal combatant who is not even entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention.
Liberal drones better enjoy the next 12 months, because Obama and his cronies are ensuring that Democrats are vanquished to the political wilderness for the foreseeable future. Obama is also quickly gaining on Jimmy Carter as the most incompetent and disgraceful President EVER.
I'm breaking my self imposed silence on this one, Tom. Someone has to say enough.
ReplyDeleteLet's see what the difference is between KSM and your above noted situations: World War II and the Civil War had actual declarations. We fought other nations, and those captured were actual enemy combatants. In those situation military tribunals were appropriate. Further, I think that the Confederacy and the Axis Powers posed slightly more of an existential threat than a bunch of half assed mountain boys who hijacked a couple of aircraft. Yes, we can all agree it was terrible, but not an existential threat to the nation.
KSM, on the other hand, was captured in the Pakistani city of Karachi by the ISI, Pakistani intelligence. I was not aware we were fighting a war in Karachi. But I guess since you and George Bush say so, he MUST be an enemy combatant, and not just a criminal in need of a 6' x 6' and a lethal injection. Hey, maybe you're an unlawful enemy combatant, the way you subversively talk about our commander in chief during wartime.
That others are being sent before tribunals actual disappoints me, but does not vitiate my position or beliefs. I think they should be tried in a court for their crimes. I do think that one of the problems is that these others may have been illegally tortured, or the evidence against them is otherwise tainted [thanks W!!], so that a civilian court cannot try them. In any event, they are still entitled to Constitutional due process and their rights under the Geveva Conventions. See: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
But I'm just a liberal, what do I know.
P.S.: for a guy who can't take it, you can surely dish out the personal attacks.
The Nazis and Confederates didn't manage to kill almost 3,000 people in downtown Manhattan and turn 16+ acres of New York's financial district into a toxic wasteland.
ReplyDeleteIf Islamists such as bin Laden and KSM could get their hands on nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, a real possiblility if Iran gets them, you might not think they are such a minor nuisance.
The Bush Administration recogized that their first duty was to keep Americans safe, so they couldn't take the threat posed by these savages as lightly as the editorial board of the New York Times does. God forbid they ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon and use it in a US city, the effect on civil liberties, the environment, our economy, tolerance for Muslims, and our very way of life would be catastrophic. Responsible leaders like your favorite villians Bush and Cheney recognized this and acted accordingly. I'm grateful they were in charge when 9/11 happened, and not someone who would engage in platitudes, psychobabble and dithering in response.
too bad Bush and Cheney failed in keeping the United States safe before 2001, huh.
ReplyDeleteDavid
T we are all angry, and we all want to see KSM hanged by his toe nails. But maybe you don't understand that by denying KSM his rights, sets a precedence for someone down the line denying you of your rights. And if you think that is absurd and that it will never happen to you, then you are being naive. Let the man have his trial, and let us preserve our rights.
ReplyDeleteAmen to this one. I just don't understand why conservatives are so scared of giving these people trials. Do any of you even think for half a second that this guy is actually going to get off? He is going to prison and won't see the sun for the rest of his natural born life - frankly Bush should have done it this way in the first place instead of fucking Guantanamo.
ReplyDeleteYou know, rule of law and all that bullshit.
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
ReplyDeleteKumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
For all the banter that conservative pundits (and their loyal regurgitators) spew about preserving our constituion, the Bill of Rights and "freedom", they sure get their panties in a bunch when the government wants to follow through on something as basic AND American as due process.
ReplyDelete