Wednesday, November 15, 2006
|
|
Cut and Run Time?
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
9:29 AM
|
|
The big question is this: Now that they’re in power, will the Democrats grow up? Or can they grow up?
In a letter dated October 20, 2006 and signed by virtually all prominent members of the new majority, the party stated its belief that “that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006.” That’s right, 2006 - the year we’re currently in, the one that expires in a mere six weeks. In other words, the cutting and running should begin some time in the next month and a half.
It’s no surprise that the signers of this letter include Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and Fightin’ Harry Reid. What is somewhat surprising and utterly dismaying is that among the signers were self-styled hawks like Joe Biden and Steny Hoyer.
Talk is cheap and campaign talk doubly so. But I’ve got a bad feeling about this particular campaign promise. Virtually every Democrat since Clinton in ’92 has run on a platform of delivering a tax-cut to the middle class. None of them delivered on it, or even made an effort to do so.
I hope history repeats itself in this case and the Democrats commit to a policy of victory rather than one that seeks to maximally embarrass the administration. But my hopes aren’t high.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
Last night Hannity and Colmes both claimed that a lawyer who defends people who use the internet to sexually prey on children should be ashamed, that he should not defend despicable people.
The people Dateline exposes are certainly among the most despicable people on the earth, but there are many other despicable people.
Charles Manson, Geoffry Dahmer, OJ Simpson, the Unabomber, Abbie Hoffman... the list goes on and on. They are all despicable, they all received the right of habeas corpus, they all received a fair trial. None were tortured.
Hannity and Colmes both suggested that child preditors should not get the rights afforded by the constituton. Sadly among conservatives this seems to be the trend.
I have heard that lllegal immigrants, enemy combatants and child preditors should have no rights. Maybe Timothy McVeigh should not have had a trial. Maybe he should not have had representation. I don't know how bad you have to be before the constitution no longer gives you any protection against the power of the government.
Is it now the position of conservatives that Habeas Corpus, legal representation and the right to face ones accusors are privleges and not rights?
Does the constitution mean today what it meant 200 years ago? |
|
|
I not really very concerned with any rhetorical bluster about Iraq on the part of Democrats. Short of cutting off funding for the war, it's really out of their hands. If they do decide to eliminate funding, they risk consigning themselves right back to the minority in two years by angering the public and giving the Republicans the opportunity to say "we told you so." The public is not in favor of "strategic redeployment" and certainly did not elect Democrats to carry out such a policy, regardless of what certain Democrats may think. |
|
|
I'd love it if Bush said screw you to Reid and Pelosi and announced that, not only aren't we cutting and running, but we're sending whatever is needed to win this thing and kicking some Iranian and Syrian butt until they stop helping the bad guys. After what they did to our hostages, I'd keep kicking Iranian butt EVEN IF they stopped messing with us in Iraq. |
|
As a conservative, I will repsond. Every person who resides in this great nation should have every right to receive a fair trial. Child predators, although disgusting individuals, still deserve, as American citizens, the right to a fair trial. Hopefully, justice will be served.
The same cannot be said for illegal immigrants. Our consitution was not written, and does not give "rights" to those people who live in our country ILLEGALLY. There are rules to entering the country and virtually anybody can do it the correct way, but when a person decides to break our laws to live in our country, does not all of a sudden have equal rights under our consitution. The rights of the constitution are reserved for Americans.
I will not comment on "enemy combatants" as they, I believe, are covered by international standards and laws. |
|
Congressional Democrats do not function as normal people do. The older ones (e.g. John Murtha) are far too gone to even get out of hte toliet themselves in the morning. The younger ones are so drugged up, they have problems seeing straight (e.g. Patrick Kennedy).
Bypass the politicians and go to who really matters - the staffers. Congressional staffers are the ones who drag Democrats out of the toliets in the morning, apply their makeup, cut deals with the DC police to get them out of the drunk tank and pay off citizens who are regularly run over and assaulted by Democrats. |
|
jtusa4 says: "Every person who resides in this great nation should have every right to receive a fair trial.... The same cannot be said for illegal immigrants. Our consitution was not written, and does not give 'rights' to those people who live in our country ILLEGALLY.... When a person decides to break our laws to live in our country, does not all of a sudden have equal rights under our consitution. The rights of the constitution are reserved for Americans."
Before he makes pronouncements like this, jtusa4 should read the Bill of Rights, which is where "the rights of the constitution" are set out. With respect to fair trials, he should look in particular at the fifth and sixth amendments, at at section 1 of the fourteenth amendment.
The fifth amendment says, in pertinent part, "No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...; nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." [emphasis added].
The sixth amendment says, in pertinent part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the ACCUSED shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense" [emphasis added].
Section 1 of the 14th amendment says, in pertinent part, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" [emphasis added].
Jtusa4 should note, in reading these amendments, that (a) the fifth amendment's rights apply to "persons," not to "citizens"; (b) the sixth amendmens rights apply to the "accused," not to "citizens"; and (c) the 14th amendment's due process and equal protection rights apply to "persons," not to "citizens." If jtusa4 had taken the time to read the constitution, he would have seen that it DOES "give 'rights' to those people who live in our country ILLEGALLY," and that even people who "decide[] to break our laws to live in our country" DO have equal rights under our consitution -- at least under the fifth and sixth amendments and with respect to due process and equal protection under section 1 of the 14th amendment.
Now, jtusa4 might argue that the word "person" in the fifth and fourteenth amendments, and the word "accused" in the sixth amendment, should be read as meaning "person who is a citizen" and "accused who is a citizen." But that argument would be completely gutted by the fact that in other places the constitution uses the word "citizen" -- in fact, the privileges and immunities portion of section 1 of the 14th amendment (the portion that comes just before the due process and equal protection portions) does just that. States can't abridge the privileges and immunities of CITIZENS, and they can't deny due process or equal protection to PERSONS. What this shows, jtusa4, is that the people who wrote the constitution were choosing their words very precisely -- and in choosing those words, they were not doing what jtusa4 would like to think they were doing.
Just so the point is clear: Although SOME rights of the constitution "are reserved for Americans," that is not the case with respect to ALL rights -- and it is certainly not the case with respect to the fair-trial rights afforded by the fifth and sixth amendments and by the due process and equal protection portions of section 1 of the 14th amendment.
|
|
The NYFishwrap is running a political cover story entitled "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say". (tinified URL: http://tinyurl.com/v74dh)
Cover for the Dems from their own spittle-spewing left flank?
|
|
|
Very good knowledge on the subject matter. We both know there are several PERSONS in this country who are here legally and are not CITIZENS of the country. Now, when the amendments speak of persons, do they encompass the entire human race? Do you believe that the founders intended ALL PEOPLE to have equality in these areas? Even the slaves? My argument is that, in refering to persons, the Bill of Rights was directed at citizens in particular, but also at those people who are here "for the short-term" or are on their way to citizenship as surely there were people from several countries residing in American who did not claim permanent residence. Persons are not those who sneak into this great country and hide, using our resources to better their own lives, while destroying the lives of others. |
|
|
The leaders of this country had better not even think about this. If they try it the anger and backlash from where I live would be incredible and the elected officals would hide in fear, esp the lone democrat. it would be more than ugly. But then they seem to live in their own little world totally unaware of the little peons the're suppossed to represent. so who knows what they will do. what does it take to get their attention? will there have to be rioting in the streets to make them listen? I just hope no more innocent Americans die in attacks before they wake up and do their job of protecting us. |
|
Jtusa4 asks: "Do you believe that the founders intended ALL PEOPLE to have equality in these areas?"
With respect to the rights in the 5th and 6th amendments, yes.
Jtusa4 asks: "Even the slaves?" With respect to the 14th amendment, yes -- since the 14th amendment was one of the three post-Civil War amendments that was intended to give equality to the slaves.
Jtusa4 states: "My argument is that, in refering to persons... [p]ersons are not those who sneak into this great country and hide, using our resources to better their own lives, while destroying the lives of others."
You can argue that until your face turns blue, jtusa4, but the constitution says what it says. In terms of fair trials, the rights we are talking about extend to everyone -- citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants. You certainly have the right not to like it, and the constitution gives you the right to try to change it. But just saying "it ain't so" doesn't help, because it IS so. |
|
Wow, we really have a death-wish in this country. The Dems want to sell-out our war dead who apparently did die for NOTHING and Bush is adament about NOT defending the border-and impeachable offense in my book.
When the next 9.11 happens we'll have no one to blame but ourselves for letting it happen. |
|
|
Viktor Frankl in "Man's Search For Meaning" pg. 28, describes arriving at Aushwitz. "In psychiatry there is a certain condition known as 'delusion of reprieve.' The condemned man...gets the illusion that he might be reprieved at the very last minute. We, too, clung to shreds of hope and believed to the last moment that it would not be so bad" This, just before they were seperated into groups, some immediately destined to the death chambers, some to the slave labor camps. I'm afraid that a lot of Republicans are now laboring under a delusion of reprieve when it comes to the reality of what the Dems intend to do. Dems will be Dems, just like scorpions that can't help themselves. |
|
If the cut-and-run Democrats have their way, our brave men and women serving in Iraq will have died in vain. I hope and pray that Bush has the guts to do whatever it takes - the Democrats and the media be damned. He's certainly shown that he can be stubborn.
Border security is critically important. And like Russell points out, not just because of the whole citizen/non-citizen argument but also because our porous borders make it so much easier for terrorists to enter our country. As far as it being an impeachable offense, well, that's a bit much. If it were, then Bush is certainly not the worst of our last few presidents. What did Clinton, Reagan, or Carter do? Nothing that I can remember. |
|
Our message to the terrorists and "insurgents" should be simple enough for everyone: We will NEVER leave. Ever. Until the last one of you is dead. We win. You lose. As long as the American people are ignorant of this basic precept of using force to achieve a goal, we lose.
The left wing across the social spectrum is frantically struggling to have a Vietnam Redux.
If they succeed the war is lost.
It's that simple. I don't know about you, but I vow to prevent this legally and ethically, using the tools at hand. If the loonies and crooks can get half a million people or better into the streets to advocate amnesty for thieves, we should be able to do better to prevent the inevitable re-writing of history from happening again. America and the world hang in the balance.
Let's get to work. |
|
The Democrats are upset and claiming that Rumsfeld went against the advice of the generals ... and so now the Democrats are going to go against the advice of the generals?
Whatever ... I don't think we're in Kansas anymore. |
|
|
And I'd be willing to bet that he would characterize himself as a "strict constructionist," too. It never ceases to amaze me that people feel themselves qualified to speak with authority on issues they know nothing (or next to nothing) about, and refuse to acknowledge that other know more than they do about those issues. But hey, you hear it on talk radio every day. |
|
The Confederate plot to "burn down the city" had failed but only one of the arsonists was eventually captured, tried by the Union military, convicted and hanged. The Southern saboteur, Captain Robert Cobb Kennedy, -- whose list of facilities firebombed included Barnum's Museum where 2,500 people were attending a lecture -- was executed at Fort Lafayette that then stood on a built-up reef in the Narrows where now stands one of the supports for the bridge connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn.
quoted from New York Correction
History Society |
|
Great arguments Bob! I always enjoy a factual debate, and in this case, you have at least brought some facts to the table. You can never learn by lacking an open mind. B-Rob, well thats a different story.... As a person who is obviously not an expert on the subject matter, I still have an opinion, and if being an "expert" in a certain area was required to have an opinion on that matter, there would only be a few people who could comment on the Consitution. This seems like a similar argument to the Rush Limbaugh/Michael J. Fox mess. Apparently Rush Limbaugh cannot have an opinion on the validity of Michael J. Fox's arguments and opinions because he doesn't have Parkisans....
I thought you raised a terrific point about the "persons" versus "citizens", and we both understand this is an issue that has been discussed in depth over the years. The fact is, illegal immigrants do not possess the same "rights" as citizens. That is a fact. The fact that they can't vote makes this obvious! Maybe the issue we are debating is what exactly are their "rights". If you go back to my initial post, it would be easily interpreted as saying they have NO rights, but I was trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to explain that, when illegal immigrants commit a crime, they sacrifice some of their rights, as would any citizen who committed a crime. They still have the rights of a human being (life, liberty) but not of a citizen.
To address the specific question, they would never go to trial simply for the fact that they have no argument. If you are an illegal alien, well then you broke the law, plain and simple. That doesn't require a trial. If they supposedly commit a murder and plead innocent, of course they have the right to a trial.
|
|
I have been very busy today and have not been able to participate in the debate I started. So thanks to Bob for supporting the constitution.
Let me add one thing just in case anybody is still reading.
jtusa4 says "Persons are not those who sneak into this great country and hide, using our resources to better their own lives, while destroying the lives of others. "
This is astonishing !
I think tourists are persons and have rights under our constitution (not to mention the laws of God). Admittedly illegal aliens commit a crime when they enter the country, but being accused of a crime or even commiting a crime is not sufficient to deny a person of their rights. The rights exist until a person is convicted in a fair trial. Even OJ has rights as he was not convicted. OJ is a person, but a mexican illegally entering the US is not.
----------------
This administration has denied rights to American citizens. Hamdan has NOT received a speedy trial. He was held without charge for more than a year and God knows if he will ever get his day in court. If Ashcroft says a citizen is a dirty bomber I guess they stop being a person.
-----------------
I assume most people here believe that sixteen undifferentiated cells in a woman's womb is a person. How strange that they say a zygote is a person and but a mexican illegally entering the US is not!
|
|
I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point?
What is the legal distinction between citizen and person?
Which courts rule on the status of illegal immigrants? Isn't the status under the Department of Justice? When caught aren't they under the jurisdiction of the INS?
Has anyone seriously proposed denying those accused of felonies their day in court?
Or is the above just a smoke screen to obscure the legality of military courts. Or don't you believe that military courts are legal? |
|
|
|