October 13, 2006
Darcy Burner Wants More Rights for Terrorists

Yes, Darcy Burner thinks terrorist detainees are entitled to Constitutional rights just like American citizens who haven't taken up arms against our country. That's the only reasonable conclusion one can draw based on her answer to a question on the topic at this week's debate.

Here's Burner's full answer (see the 1:20:00 mark):

My opponent earlier talked about due process, and I'm a huge believer in due process. One of the things that has made this country so great is that every person who is accused has the right to hear the accusations against them, to see the evidence, and to defend themselves. And I'm ashamed that our Congress was so ready to pass a bill that stripped the most basic due process rights away from people.

We do need to fight the War on Terror, and make sure we do everything we can to keep the American people safe, but we need to do it in a way that is consistent with our principles and our values. That means upholding the Constitution rather than undermining it.

Darcy Burner has walked right into the trap of liberal talking points on this issue. For all her shame, she's missed the fact entirely that the Constitution applies to and was written for US citizens, not foreign terrorist detainees.

Readers recently had the chance to digest a full-length essay on this broader topic. A couple passages are worth revisiting:

A key, unifying theme in liberal opposition to this legislation, as expressed nationwide and locally, is that the procedures outlined for treating terrorist detainees supposedly trample Constitutional rights. Evidently, it has not occurred to these champions of the rights of fellow Americans that the detainees in question are not American citizens - the specific language in the bill refers to "alien unlawful enemy combatants." They have been, and are being, captured as said "unlawful combatants," a particular designation in the rules of war that has not traditionally meant such individuals are obligated to receive a nice hot bath and mints on their pillows before bed time.

Even the Seattle Times story linked above notes this salient fact:

Only foreign nationals among those detainees can be tried by the military commissions. U.S. citizens designated enemy combatants have not been stripped of their habeas-corpus rights and so have access to civilian courts.

Darcy Burner is dead wrong in terms of both historical and legal precedent for dealing with foregin terrorist detainees. Yet she is "ashamed." Ashamed of what? Ashamed of this?:

Thus comes the crux of the issue: the United States is at war, atypical though it may be, against an uncivilized and brutal enemy. When that enemy is taken into custody, his very actions and behavior merit a legal standing unlike those afforded to US citizens under the Constitution. What is afforded them? See this fact sheet and this Q&A. The later document notes the tribunals in question including the following protections:

- The right to be tried before an impartial military judge and impartial commission;
- The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt;
- The right to counsel, including a JAG defense counsel and retained civilian counsel;
- The right to obtain witnesses and evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to appropriate discovery;
- The right against self-incrimination and the right against double jeopardy; and
- The right to at least two appeals from any conviction, including to a Federal Article III appellate court.

It would appear that Burner's shame about "due process" is as misguided as her shame about the supposed "undermining" of the Constitution. Perhaps her shame is also directed at her fellow Democrats who voted for the bill? That would be 30 House Democrats, plus 12 in the Senate.

There could not be a starker contrast between Burner and Reichert on any issue. Reasoned opposition to the bill is one matter, but Burner's rhetoric, devoid of factual support, underscores the degree to which the liberal base holds sway over certain candidates.

Ronald Reagan once succinctly summarized his belief on US policy towards the Soviet Union thus: "We win and they lose." Our nation's current struggle, and frankly that of much of the civilized world, against radical Islam is no different. Darcy Burner's position on terrorist detainees makes her own position on that struggle look decidedly incompetent. Good luck with that message the next several weeks.

Posted by Eric Earling at October 13, 2006 07:15 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Speaking of debates (or, to be more precise, "joint appearances at candidates' forums," there was a second joint appearance of Steve Beren and Jim McDermott before 1,000 people Monday night at the Korean American Voters Alliance, and a third candidates' forum is scheduled for Wednesday night October 25 under the auspices of the Maple Leaf Community Council. For more information and reports on the first two events, go to:

http://www.berenforcongress.com/debate.html
http://www.berenforcongress.com/shoreline.html
http://www.berenforcongress.com/kava.html

Posted by: Beren for Congress on October 13, 2006 07:49 AM
2. So whats new. Democrats in Power want to cripple any attempt to protect US Citizens. Remember they want to weaken laws for Illegals. It is a way to call our American Soldiers war Criminals. Every change they want to do to help the military to do their job was to add lawyers to see if what they are doing is legal. Why is it that they want to put the same limitations they have placed on Police on the Military. That makes the rules of engagement to the point that More Americans get Killed.
I here the cry they killed a baby. They do not take into account that right behind the baby was 3 or 4 terrorists shooting at the soldiers. Or a Terrorist shooting through a window with a family in the room and our soldiers return fire and kill or injure family members that they did not know were in the same room. While killing the Terrorists others get hurt are unacceptable to them. Since when do the military have xray eyes to see through the walls. Remember also Mosques are used as ammunition dumps. We do not allow our soldiers to enter mosques to see if something fishy is going on. So every time you turn around more limitations are added because of the bleeding hearts keep saying you cant do that. It makes them hate us more.
The bottom line her stance is the stance of the majority of Democratic leadership in this country. Look at what they do to the police departments when Democrats control an area. They want to do the same to the Military.
More lawyers telling the soldiers what they can or can not do. JUDges saying what can or can not be done. Release the terrorists during a war because they have committed no crime. Where they not taken prisoner in Battle? Yet Attacking American Soldiers to them is not a crime. IT is our fault. Blame America First. And many of the released prisoners have shown up to attack our Soldiers again. I guess they think war is like fishing. Catch and release so they can be caught again at a higher American life count or they can kill themselves as a suicide bomber to kill as many other people as possible.
Democrats take heed this way of thinking only weakens our response and emboldens the enemy. Case and Point North Korea has nuclear weapons why because democrats leadership provided a sweet deal with the word of a socialist/Dictator that he will not make nuclear weapons. That is the world of cause and effect. Now he is trying blackmail the US because he has weapons.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on October 13, 2006 08:05 AM
3. Darcy,

What rights would you have if the Islamo-nazis win?

Posted by: JCM on October 13, 2006 08:05 AM
4. In Minneapolis, if you don't toe the Muslim line, the Muslim taxi driver won't pick you up. At the present, if you have a liquor bottle with you, opened or unopened, you can't get a ride. Do the Mormons take their religion to that extreme?

Are the "right wing" evangelicals (and boy, do I ever hate that term) who happen to be mail carriers allowed to censor who and what gets certain magazines?

Think about the real war, Darcy. Think about the forest and not the trees. You can't, can you.

Posted by: swatter on October 13, 2006 08:32 AM
5. The point is not rights for terrorists, its for rights of people accused of being terrorists. Due process doesn't protect criminals it protects the innocent. People falsely accused, people in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc. Due process has been a successful and fundamental part of American jurisprudence since this country was born. You know along with those quaint ideas like checks and balances, open government, etc.

I get that you trust the Bush administration to only detain actual terrorists. Would you accord the same trust to a Hillary administration. I highly doubt it. Due process helps assure all of us that the people we are detaining actually deserve it.

sawtter: I thought you guys supported the right of private business to do as they see fit. I take it then you are a strong supporter of washingtons recent gay civil rights legislation.

Posted by: Giffy on October 13, 2006 08:48 AM
6. If someone in 1943 had suggested that honorable German soldiers were constitutionally entitled to due process when we captured them, that person would have been branded forever as pro-Nazi (or a least as irredeemably stupid).

Now, an entire major party is committed to the position that dishonorable terrorist combatants are entitled to due process when we capture them. Not only that, but they should also get the Geneva Convention protections to which honorable POWs are entitled.

And that party has a fair chance of controlling Congress come January.

If this is a war, we're going to lose it. And if it's not, then we're going to lose whatever it is.

Posted by: ScottM on October 13, 2006 08:53 AM
7. American citizens are still entitled to due process, as they should be. We make no promises to foreign nationals who are fighting against us, or funding terrorism, as it should be.

Posted by: Palouse on October 13, 2006 08:57 AM
8. I'll vote for the individual who successfully led the Seattle Police force and understands what the laws are and how they are applied by the courts of this land.

They don't sit in the court room with terrorists and sing Com By Ya as many on the left are advocating.

My vote is with Reichert!

Posted by: Gs on October 13, 2006 08:58 AM
9.
"sawtter: I thought you guys supported the right of private business to do as they see fit. I take it then you are a strong supporter of washingtons recent gay civil rights legislation. "

If that doesn't typify the left! Private business do as they want as defined by government!

Posted by: Right said Fred on October 13, 2006 09:05 AM
10. Darcy has fallen into current Paganism, contextualizing everything through her own standards. In this case good and evil are coequals therefore it makes perfect sense to equate the rights of everyone as equal regardless of their actions (Burka Installing, Throat cutting Rug Pilots = American Solider). On the other hand she just as easily could demand war crimes trial for Global Warming Deniers as we heard yesterday from fellow Deathocracts.

Stripped bare of any real standards and we have chaos on our hands. The last 5 years of American and world politics shows this on a wide scale. DB is manifesting this perfectly and boy are we going to pay the price whether she gets elected or not. It is a wonder why she follows speed limits, red light-green lights, or does not just drop the f-bomb every 5th word at a debate??? Ok so she has some standards from somewhere but not absolute standards. We have seen her redefining the meaning of executive or bringing a rent-a-mob to the debate or sending little kids out with manila folders to block others filming her and believe that is ok; not a problem.

The DB-DR race clearly illustrates the dramatic fork in the road America has been wavering on for 5 years and frankly this one has no middle ground. Pick and choose wisely my friend and yes it is ok to say no to evil and not coddle it or make a deal with it.

Posted by: Col. Hogan on October 13, 2006 09:09 AM
11. Another quote from the debate you might like, since you enjoy taking things out of context so much- "we need to stop worrying so much about who is burning American flags and pay a little more attention to who is burning the Constitution". Pay attention- You are a pawn for the GOP administration--- "If the terrorists win"? what the fuck is that? Since you like quoting so much, here's another for you- "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live, and fear breeds repression. too often sinister threats to the bill of rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-[terrorism].
Grow up, and realize that the GOP is a MUCH bigger threat than the terrorists.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 13, 2006 09:29 AM
12. Fred, before we can enter into a discussion about what I believe, we need to get an answer to my comment. I believe that I did get the answer.

You say that a Muslim can impose his/her religion on another, but if it were a Mormon or Christian, they can't. I say good on the Mormon or Christian not being able to impose their religion on another, but BOO on your assertion that a Muslim can.

Again, we need to get this point decided before you and I can get into the role of government and special protections for special interest groups.

Posted by: swatter on October 13, 2006 09:31 AM
13. What Darcy and liberal commenters here don't understand is that the civilian due process rights granted to US Citizens in the Constitution are specifically not time limited and specifically not designed for a war scenario. It makes all the sense in the world to give a US Citizen plenty of time in our court system where the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. And in civilian crimes, there's usually not an element of urgency that goes beyond the immediate circle of the crime.

War is at a national level. Enemy combatants are not attacking one person in South Seattle, they are attacking the US in general and the symbols and institutions of Western Civilization, Freedom, Secularism, Material Wealth, Sexuality, etc. And these combatants are working together in close knit organizations and planning large scale attacks that have a time critical nature if they are to be thwarted. While it definitely makes sense to show detainees basic human decency, which we do, there is a need to extract critical information about other terrorism, etc. and also to try these criminals swiftly. There is no provision to do so in the US prison system or in our civilian courts, nor should there be, this is war, and that is the purpose of military tribunals.

Speaking in the civilian language of due process, presumed innocence, appeals courts, etc. shows the unwillingness of the left to recognize the dire situation we face that is indeed a dangerous extra national force of combatants engaged in war. When Democrats like Darcy Burner take this line, they alienate themselves from the majority that clearly understand that the first duty of the US Government is to protect its citizens.

I can't emphasize this enough, Darcy is going to lose in November.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 13, 2006 09:31 AM
14. Grow up, and realize that the GOP is a MUCH bigger threat than the terrorists.

Thanks michaelUW

I want the Democrats to start using that as a campaign slogan. Should do wonders for them.

Posted by: swassociates on October 13, 2006 09:37 AM
15. Giffy,

It has been covered in many threads that US citizens retain their rights.

Darcy and Co. want to extend US Constitutional projects to foreign national illegal combatants captured on foreign battlefields.

By what legal precedent, law, or logical construction do you accomplish that?

Posted by: JCM on October 13, 2006 09:46 AM
16. MichaelUW
Since you like quoting so much, here's another for you- "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats to the bill of rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-[terrorism].

Pot--meet kettle. What is Burner's fear? She seems to fear the GOP, and actual free speech, and many other things. And as MichaelUW mentions, her fear breeds repression, and leads to all the other things. But her patriotic cloak isn't anti-terroism. It's anti-Bush, or anti-War, or many other antis.

Grow up, and realize that the GOP is a MUCH bigger threat than the terrorists.
I see that MichaelUW does his (future?) alma mater proud by such a stunning argument. Yes, friends, these are our best and brightest, the future of America.

Posted by: pseudotsuga on October 13, 2006 09:50 AM
17. Swatter - Sorry about that, I was rushing. I was quoting #5 Giffy who directed that to you. I could have been clearer.

As far as the rest of it, I either missed some deleted post from a Fred, or I have no idea where the idea that I feel one religion can impose their views on another comes from

Posted by: Right said Fred on October 13, 2006 09:54 AM
18. michaelUW - you must be college educated (or something) - the leftist terminology you use is a dead-giveaway...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 13, 2006 10:08 AM
19. michaelUW - does that mean that when the GOP becomes too powerful (presumably by chopping off heads?) that the Ds will rise up and take the country back? Is that the kind of war the left approves - mind you, without guns.

Posted by: Right said Fred on October 13, 2006 10:31 AM
20. Can she be serious? Trials? Um, Darcy, doesn't the Geneva Convention specifically state that Prisioners of War are not to be put on Trial? She really needs to go away back under her little rock. Oh, sorry, her exectutive rock.

Posted by: Mikey on October 13, 2006 11:08 AM
21. Grow up, and realize that the GOP is a MUCH bigger threat than the terrorists.

Projected like the true, fifth column member you are. If 'we' are such a threat, why aren't you doing something about it? And you'd better hurry before Chimpy has you locked up.

Posted by: jimg on October 13, 2006 11:22 AM
22. Grow up, and realize that the GOP is a MUCH bigger threat than the terrorists.

HELP! HELP! I'm being oppressed!

Posted by: Palouse on October 13, 2006 11:43 AM
23. When did it become a bad thing to be college educated? are you seriously making an argument that it's better to be uneducated?

Posted by: michaelUW on October 13, 2006 11:45 AM
24. Burner's views are best explained by the fact that she flunked out of law school.

Posted by: Paddy on October 13, 2006 12:05 PM
25. #22 - good avoiding any of the points and bring up something that no one said!

Most on this site believe in education, diversity, tolerance, and equal opportunity.

That is a diverse education that provides the student with all points of view neutrally so that the students can think for themselves, to tolerate all points of view by discussing the facts/views civily rather than shout down (Columbia), obsenities, and at times violence, and equal opportunity for everyone by not having the government create classes within the population that get special treatment over others because of the way they were born.

Posted by: Right said Fred on October 13, 2006 12:07 PM
26. MichaelUW (#23) - depends on your defintion of "educated". You're right; uneducated is a bad thing, but just because you have a college degree, doesn't mean you're educated.

Posted by: lmk on October 13, 2006 12:07 PM
27. #25 was meant to refer to #23, not #22

Posted by: Right said Fred on October 13, 2006 12:08 PM
28. Right said Fred. Take a moment to notice that my #23 was a RESPONSE to threads previously stated by other members here. So actually...yes, someone DID say that. If Republicans would just pay attention, they wouldnt be in such risk of losing the house. I suppose being "educated" and being "observant" are not really the same thing to some people...

Posted by: michaelUW on October 13, 2006 12:24 PM
29. Right said Fred. Take a moment to notice that my #23 was a RESPONSE to threads previously stated by other members here. So actually...yes, someone DID say that. If Republicans would just pay attention, they wouldnt be in such risk of losing the house. I suppose being "educated" and being "observant" are not really the same thing to some people...

Posted by: michaelUW on October 13, 2006 12:24 PM
30. What the previous post regarding your college education meant was that you sound indoctrinated. Not that college education is a bad thing.

Posted by: Palouse on October 13, 2006 12:42 PM
31. Note to MichaelUW:

Republicans don't fly planes into buildings.
Republicans don't behead journalists, nuns and volunteers.
Republicans don't put people in human sized grinders.
Republicans don't use poison gas (WMDs!) on Kurds.
Republicans don't MAKE women cover their faces and refuse to let them go to school.
Republicans don't teach kids how to wear bomb belts and blow up the Jewish.
Republicans don't kill people who differ from their opinion.

And most importantly, Republicans don't let tyrants kill innocent people.

If you are scared of Republicans and what we stand for, you really are uneducated.


Posted by: Easycure on October 13, 2006 12:44 PM
32. michaelUW -

Education is about learning how to think, not indoctrination. Your comments, in sum, suggest that your tenure (if any) at an institution of higher learning has consisted almost entirely of the latter.

Your comments are so breath-takingly stupid that they make it impossible to take you seriously.

One of the most helpful rules for living is that, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

If you really want a rational debate on these issues, you would do well to apologize for having a bad day, and return to the fray tomorrow, after first giving some thought to the issue and the arguments advanced.

Posted by: ewaggin on October 13, 2006 01:03 PM
33. MichaelIUW: For someone so highly educated and involved, one would think you would at least have learned how to control your mouse and not overclick the post button.

Posted by: katomar on October 13, 2006 01:34 PM
34. wow...first one is criticized for being educated...then someone actually wastes time to post a blog about an accidental "doubleclicking" of a mouse...Interesting. What's more interesting is how NO ONE has been able to criticize my actual points about Darcy Burner. Are you all AMONG the groing population of republicans that support Darcy Burner?

Posted by: michaelUW on October 13, 2006 02:28 PM
35. "Republicans don't fly planes into buildings."
No they just ignore the warnings

"Republicans don't behead journalists, nuns and volunteers."
No they just try and censor the media

"Republicans don't put people in human sized grinders."
No they just support other means of torture.

"Republicans don't use poison gas (WMDs!) on Kurds."
No they just sell them to dictators(Saddam)

"Republicans don't MAKE women cover their faces and refuse to let them go to school."
No they just tell them to stay pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen

"Republicans don't teach kids how to wear bomb belts and blow up the Jewish."
No they just don't really teach kids at all

"Republicans don't kill people who differ from their opinion."
No they just try to remove their rights.

"And most importantly, Republicans don't let tyrants kill innocent people."
hahahahahahahahahaha Since when?


Sure terrorists are worse then Republicans, but not by much. :)

Posted by: Giffy on October 13, 2006 02:47 PM
36. Darcy? protect me against terror? no thanks. she's an age-enhanced photo of a teen baby sitter.
grow up first, please, and then come back into politics. out of your league. no disrespect intended, just the hard truth.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 13, 2006 03:07 PM
37. if she wins, can you picture her on a U.S. carrier shaking hands with fighter pilots? her helmet is down to her shoulders and she's banging around in it like a toddler with Dad's hardhat;

the pilots, who land on choppy decks with billion dollar planes, strain VERY hard, like taking g's in a turn, to say "M'aam" as in "Yes, M'aam" without vomiting.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 13, 2006 03:28 PM
38. "Republicans don't fly planes into buildings."
"No they just ignore the warnings"
...and bomb aspirin factories in Sudan (sorry, that was a Democrat who ignored the warnings and bombed the aspirin factory, wasn't it?)

"Republicans don't behead journalists, nuns and volunteers."
"No they just try and censor the media"
...by trying to implement a "Fairness Doctrine" that would ban conservative talk radio (oops! Democrats again)

"Republicans don't put people in human sized grinders."
"No they just support other means of torture."
Speaking of Guantanamo, when's the last time you saw a torture victim gain weight?

"Republicans don't use poison gas (WMDs!) on Kurds."
"No they just sell them to dictators(Saddam)"
Check your facts. It was West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China who supplied the gas to Saddam, not the U.S. Unless you're talking about all the baked beans we sent them under the Food For Oil program.

"Republicans don't MAKE women cover their faces and refuse to let them go to school."
"No they just tell them to stay pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen."
...when they're not appointing them to be Supreme Court justices, National Security Adviser, Secretary of State, and electing them to Congress, the Senate, and various governorships?

"Republicans don't teach kids how to wear bomb belts and blow up the Jewish."
"No they just don't really teach kids at all"
...they just support school choice for all children instead of just for the elites who put their kids in private schools while taking money from the NEA to try to force kids to remain in our declining (in every way except budget) public schools.

"Republicans don't kill people who differ from their opinion."
"No they just try to remove their rights."
...like the right to keep and bear arms, the right to teach your own morals to your kids instead of subjecting them to liberal indoctrination, the right of conservatives to speak in public without being shouted down by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual leftists (oops! again...)

"And most importantly, Republicans don't let tyrants kill innocent people."
"hahahahahahahahahaha Since when?"
I'll grant you that one. Until the neo-conservative movement started, with its emphasis on building democracies around the world, the Republicans tended to support right wing governments, no matter how tyrannical. But they stopped, unlike the Democrats, who continue to support any left wing government, no matter how tyrannical.

Sorry Goofy... uh, Giffy, it won't wash.

Posted by: sro on October 13, 2006 03:28 PM
39. MichaelUW:
wow...first one is criticized for being educated...

You brought it up first as an argument, buddyboy, by assuming that anybody who doesn't think like you do isn't educated. That's a really good way to invite criticism of your own meager education.

What's more interesting is how NO ONE has been able to criticize my actual points about Darcy Burner.

Talking points are not actual points.
You didn't raise any real argument other than quoting Burner for some reason that you didn't explain. This is why nobody is criticizing your "points."

And Giffy the Pinhead--you need some more medication? It looks like you've run out...

Posted by: pseudotsuga on October 13, 2006 03:34 PM
40. The Democrat party leaders stand in front of the
nation and tell not only the US voters but the entire world that they will not defend the US.
That foreign enemies who don't even have the courage to wear a uniform as defined in the Geneva Conventions, should be afforded rights which they deny American soldiers who proudly wear their American uniform, makes absolutely no sense. For Americans to vote for these Democrats, who promise to make sure that these
cowards are rewarded with all the benefits of American citizenship, is sickening.

Posted by: pagar on October 13, 2006 05:52 PM
41. Actually MichaelUW, I mentioned the educated bit as a touch of sarcasm since you make an implication of association to the UW. The irony is in the fact that you don't appear to have an original thought in you, the hodge-podge of crap that is floating about is disjointed and incoherent, and, as a liberal topper, the most poignant utterance you've made so far is that liberal brand of eloquence, the "F" word.

Bravo for you MichaelUW, your mama must be proud!

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 13, 2006 08:15 PM
42. Let's see,

The Republicans do make our troops face the death penalty - when they are just doing their job.
The Republicans did throw a guy in prison for letting a dog bark in an iraqi ear.
The Republicans did fly the bid laden family out of america when no one else was flying.
George Bush has been telling all of america since 9/11 what a great religion Islam is and how it is truly all about peace.
The Republicans have lost Somalia, Mauritania, S. Lebannon to islamic fundamentalist, and are letting both iran and north korea go nuclear.
While racking up the biggest deficit in American history - and letting one of America's cities drown.
...
But what else do you expect from the frat boy, drunk till he's 40 president and the bush/ford liberal wing of the republican party.

Posted by: John McDonald on October 13, 2006 11:05 PM
43. """and letting one of America's cities drown."""
Democrat governor, Democrat mayor, school buses
sitting in their parking areas in the city of New Orleans, Democrat written plan to use the school buses to evacuate city residents. I hope the world never gets another chance to see another disaster where people's lives depend on Democrats. Democrats may tell you they have a plan, but they just don't have the ability to make their plans work.

Posted by: pagar on October 14, 2006 05:30 AM
44. Yup, pagar you are right the state and local democrats did very bad as well and deserve to be booted from office if not sent to jail. To bad you aren't honest enough admit the frat boy president and his frat boy race horse Brownie man did a really bad job too. For $100B spent on homeland security and disaster preparedness seems to me that in America people should have to wait around for 4 days for a drink of water. Our republican federal government could not even evacuate 20,000 people in 4 days. Communication still did not work, their weren't boats, and the TV stations beat the national guard in.

We can't afford a Republican party that thinks spending billions equals progress and substitutes for good leadership.

Posted by: John McDonald on October 14, 2006 07:20 AM
45. Ah, liberal~john....out of rehab already? Or is this just a weekend pass? Still reliably carrying the Dhimmicrats water I see.

It is absolutely breathtaking, your lack of comprehension of reality.

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 08:15 AM
46. Come on, John, you know that FEMA is not a first reponder organization and was never envisioned as one. You also know that it was the Governor's responsibility to send the National Guard in, and she balked. You also know that in order for the President to send federal troops in, the Governor must request it, and she balked. Trying to blame the whole mess on Bush is childish. There should indeed have a better response in New Orleans. Everyone should have been more prepared and better coordinated. The FEMA failure had to do with a lack of coordination with local entities, and not all of it was on the FEMA side. We would not have witnessed such a debacle in New Orleans had Mayor Ray Nagin acted as a true mayor and evacuated those folks as he should have done as planned.

Posted by: katomar on October 14, 2006 08:26 AM
47. Hi Eric-

I don't know what Burner's position is, so I'll let others defend her.

I can tell you my position: I'm for the rule of law and am pro-Constitution. Our Constitution says "all persons", not "all citizens". That was intentional.

If you don't like the law or the Constitution, I empathetically encourage you to change 'em.

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that the "Global War on Terror" has been a complete bust. I'd like to congratulate its architects. And I praise all its supporters for their keen grip on fantasy and their steadfast loyalty to failure and incompetence.

Cheers, Jason

Posted by: zappini on October 14, 2006 08:52 AM
48. Alphabet Soup- Throughout this entire thread, you have insulted people's thoughts, yet never introduced an original one of your one. Thus, here is your challenge. Let's see if, at all possible, you can say something that isn't a Bush talking point, and isn't an insult to something someone ELSE said.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 14, 2006 09:36 AM
49. What constitutes a "Bush talking point"? Anything that you don't agree with? And what do you consider an insult? "trailer trash whore"?

Seems to me that discourse begets discourse. And insult begs response. If you don't care for the "give & take" then FOAD...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 10:09 AM
50. haha. I knew you wouldn't be able to. I guess that's what I SHOULD expect from someone who spends all day on these blogs with little else to do but bitch while the democrats are getting stuff done. And, honestly, anyone who attacks a 3-year-old boy deserves a lot more than jjust being called a trailer trash whore.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 14, 2006 10:14 AM
51. Zappini - there's no question about Burner's position, she stated it quite clearly.

As for your position, I'll tell you what, why don't you travel back in time and ask the Founding Fathers if the meant the Constitution to apply to foreign citizens, captured on foreign soil, fighting a war against our country. That's primarily who were talking about here.

Your position indicates you have less understanding of the Constitution and the history of warfare (and legal rights therein) than even most people spouting the stereotypical liberal, anti-Bush screed on this issue.

But, thanks for commenting.

Posted by: Eric Earling on October 14, 2006 10:24 AM
52. However, to help you out a little bit since you seem to not be able to understand what a "Bush Talking Point" is, let me break it down for you --> "Bush"- this is in relation to our President George Bush. "Talking Point"- this is a motif, a theme, or political platform that Bush promotes in everyone of his speeches or public appearances.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 14, 2006 10:24 AM
53. You dumba$$, I'm just trying to figure out what WTH you're talking about. Your scribblings are all over the map.

And then it hits me - just like my Pa used to say: "Son, don't try to teach a pig to sing; It'll wear you down and it irritates the pig".

You're not worth a response other than gratuitous insult. You're a third-order piece of crap that drinks heartily from the liberal toilet.

Bully for you.

Dhimmicrats "getting stuff done"?! Like what? You're so dim you don't even keep track of the Dhimmi talking points. "We're the minority party so we are allowed to "get stuff done"

Way to go u-dub....your mama must be so proud.

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 10:28 AM
54. I took a moment to go outside and see if, in this city of hundreds of thousands of lost liberal souls, I could find any Dhimmicrats "getting stuff done". Alas, no joy. It seems that the best I could do was a handful minding other people's business. Was that what you mean by "getting stuff done" u-dub?

No I have no interest or desire to be a current-day Diogenes - trying to find an honest Dhimmi - life is too short and there are more productive ways to spend my time.

I'm glad you acknowledge your BDS - it makes communication with you so expedient.

Be sure to come back and regale us with all the tales of Dhimmi's "getting stuff done" (just as soon as you make one up)

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2006 10:52 AM
55. Zappini - the constitution is not a global document, it is a US document. It applies only within the juristiction of the US, and to the US government treatemnt of US citizens. Therefore it covers all people within the US, and all US citizens outside of the US with respect to the dealings with the US government.

As you probably know, Nick Berg did not have constitutional protection before he had his head cut off.

People that are not included in that are foreigners not in the US.

Posted by: Fred on October 14, 2006 03:08 PM
56. If this was a "traditional" war, then we would be fighting soldiers in uniform who we caught on battle fields and we could identify them as such. Prisinors of War (POWs) could be held as such, legally, until the conflict was over - without ever having any trial whatsoever. They would also be offered every Geneva Convention protection.

It does not matter which prisoner is or is not a signer of the Geneva Conventions, what matters is that the US is a signer of the Geneva Conventions; we must abide by the treaties that we sign.

Remember, this is not about them, this is about us. Just what kind of an America are we?

Since this is not a normal war, and the battlefield is the entire friggin' world, and our "enemy" is not defined, and this war can last forever, the people captured could be held as POWs forever. POWs can be held for as long as the conflict exists.

So, one must ask, why try them at all?

Is it, perhaps, because the identities of some of these people have been found out and it has been determined that some of these people were not terrorists at all but instead innocent people picked up or purchased via a ransom paid to one of many mid-east countries and that they had done absolutely nothing wrong?

Was it because someone's detention had been challenged and the Administration was forced into trying some of these people?

(BTW - these are people not "terrorists" - no one has yet been convicted of anything and only a few have been charged.)

Now, the reason that the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" was written was because Hamdan was able to file a habeus petition, a right now removed by this act.

This means any one of us can be labeled an enemy combatant and will not have the right to ask why we are being held.

This bill allows the president to hold anyonewho has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

The definition of "enemy combatant" is left to the Administration.

They get to define it!

This is bothersome, extremely, and the fact that you are not bothered is appalling.

Perhaps you ought to do some research. If you did, I think that you might be ashamed as well.

Posted by: Anjha on October 14, 2006 06:36 PM
57. Furthermore, the MCA is blatantly unconstitutional.

The Act has shredded the Constitution. The very thing that our soldiers are supposedly fighting for.

It destroys 225 years of the shining city on the hill. That was us, the United States, before it was brought down in an earthquake which is the neo-con takeover of this Country.

I really hope that you all open your eyes before you end up indefinately detained with no ability to ask why.

Remember

(and your title is grossly misleading - it is rights for "people" - people to question why they are detained - people have been incorrectly detained and I would want for any one of you the right to ask why, the right to ask why you are detained, what the charges against you are, what the evidence is, who accused you...)

when you talk about the massive need to be protected from terrorists none of you seem to remember or even be aware of, what the actual oath of office of the president and the members of Congress is.

Their oath is to protect and defend the Constitution. Without this protection we have nothing.

Posted by: Anjha on October 14, 2006 06:52 PM
58. A couple of other points.

The primary 'need' for this legislation is to keep the president out of jail. However, we cannot pass retroactive legislation against international war crimes.

And it is not only the 'loony left' who thinks so.

Posted by: Anjha on October 14, 2006 06:56 PM
59. Anjha -

Well, I did in fact do some research, I simply happen to believe the information you've provided above is long on heartfelt feelings of what should happen (and what has happened for that matter) versus any concept of legal and factual reality. I noted at the essay linked in the post above that the US did not sign on to the Geneva Protocol in question from the 1970's that would grant unlawful combatants similar rights to POWs.

If you'd care to provide a link to the relevant portion of the Geneva Conventions actually accepted by the US that binds us to provide Constitutional rights to unlawful alien combatants then please let me know.

In the meantime, I do believe the military tribunals in question offer greater rights to the accused than did the Nuremberg Trials after WWII. So, Khalid Sheik Muhammad is getting better judicial treatment than Herman Goering. Seems more than fair.

Also, thanks for the link to the Global Justice Initiative. I mean, holy cow, if an arm of the UN says we should shut down Guantanamo, then OMG! We should shut it down, by all means. No questions asked.

Posted by: Eric Earling on October 14, 2006 07:01 PM
60. The UK has also stated that Gitmo should be closed. Georgie's last friend.

Posted by: Anjha on October 14, 2006 07:08 PM
61. Ben Ferencz disagrees,
"Sixty years later, I am afraid, this and other lessons from Nuremberg are lost on the Bush administration."

and it was the Supremes who stated:

"But in June, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that the provisions of the Geneva Convention could be applied to an unconventional conflict, like the war on terrorism. The court said that Common Article 3 covered all individuals caught up in a conflict, whether part of a regular military force or not."

Posted by: Anjha on October 14, 2006 07:25 PM
62. Burner >> babysitter. Nice, but wrong person.
Don't send a youngster to do an adult's job.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 14, 2006 08:33 PM
63. Anjha -

Oh, so because one British official says it should be closed then that's the tipping point. I see.

Also, would you rather these kind souls like KSM be tried in the ICC? Talk about a making a mockery of justice.

There is a fundamental difference between your side and mine on this issue. I believe in the rule of law, of the U.S. Constitution, and historical and legal precedent covering these matters. You believe in cute sounding institutions heavy on the word "international." They sound nice at all, but haven't been proven to work terribly well (that Slobodan Milosevic trial being such a stellar case of timely justice). Moreover, when push comes to shove on national security, I trust our elected Congress over "world opinion."

Which brings me to Common Article 3, which is part of the 1949 Conventions. Note it does not include Protocol I from the 70's that in which we specifically chose not to participate. In addition, you will recall a strong dissent against the Supreme Court majority that Common Article 3 applies to the persons in question. Just because five Justices say it's so doesn't make it thus, as the history of the Court itself proves.

Since Congress has final say on the implementation of such decisions, there is nothing wrong (and frankly it is to be expected) in Congress then choosing to clarify the obtusely vague language in Article 3 so that there is some degree of functionality to it. Otherwise phrases such as "outrages upon personal dignity" become legally worthless. You don't like their clarification. That's nice.

So, thanks for the link fest and all, but good night.

Posted by: Eric Earling on October 14, 2006 08:38 PM
64. Hi Anjha-

Good posts. Happy Hunting!

Cheers, Jason

Posted by: zappini on October 15, 2006 07:06 AM
65. Fred, Eric-

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is for us. We adhere to it because it benefits us. We hold ourselves to a higher standard because it helps us.

I'm sorry you haven't figured that out.

Also, something I learned in bible school: We'll be judged by how we treat the least among us. I'm not entirely sure how sodomizing children and holding innocents indeterminately helps me or my nation. But I'm very sure we're being judged for it.


Eric-

I'm glad you've researched all this stuff, found all the edge cases, loop holes, and have divined some doublethink to support your thesis. I'm not so clever.

But I do wonder one thing. It's a matter of pragmatism. It what ways has anything the Bush Administration has done in their Global War On Terror (tm) helped matters? What policies have they enacted which have helped? What actions have they done that have helped? In what ways does trashing our Constitution make us safer, server our interests, boost national security, help us with our allies, help defeat our enemies, etc.

If you can compile a list, I should very much want to see it. Because, for the life of me, I can't think of a single thing that wasn't botched by Bush Administration. Even the actions I initially agreed with (invasion of Afghanistan), and seemed like "gimmes", they somehow managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

So, please, continue polishing your rhetoric and your convoluted logic. But know that those of us who aren't so clever are watching, waiting, and learning. We've observed that the path taken by the Bush Administration (and I believe is supported by you) didn't work. And no amount of wishing it will work can change the actual outcomes observed. Simply put, the Bush Administration failed, utterly. The one silver lining from the last 6 years of screwups is that the majority of the American people now see this truth for themselves as well.

Thinking about your attempts to justify destroying our society by attacking its foundational principles reminds me of this saying: You can win all the battles and still lose the war. And, as we've seen, the Bush Administration, and all their supporting sycophants, have lost the war.


Cheers, Jason

Posted by: zappini on October 15, 2006 08:23 AM
66. zappini - all the lists in the world aren't going to quell your BDS. So, please, continue polishing your rhetoric and your convoluted logic. come se come sa.

"Simply put, the Bush Administration failed, utterly." Until you look at the alternative as posed by the Dhimmicrats. Then the Bush
Administration succeeded tremendously insofar as one can, given this problem. And it has succeeded in spite of the Dhimmicrats (in fact, we had to drag your cowardly a$$es the whole way!).

You don't believe me or agree with me. I don't care. You think we've "lost the war" with Republicans in control - it'll look like an Easter parade if the Dhimmi's ever regain control...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 15, 2006 12:32 PM
67. Zappini - I'm sure you would have said the same when 800 troops died in the practice invasion of Normandie took place on the Dover coast. And when the actual invasion took place we would have then definately needed to 'redeploy' - the D euphamism for reteat - our troops.

And then when the number of kamakazee pilot recruits soared after the US decalares war on Japan, well another reason for 'redepolyment'.

The D strategy for winning wars is clear - 'redeployment'.

Posted by: Fred on October 15, 2006 02:41 PM
68. Hi Fred-

The Democrats won WWII.

Do you have a better example?

Cheers, Jason

Posted by: zappini on October 15, 2006 03:12 PM
69. Good point. Reach back 40 years to the last time any of us saw a shred of decency or honor in a Dhimmicrat. Now don't forget to mention that Republicans worked hand in hand with democrats in order to achieve that victory. It was something about common interest and common defense.

It's a shame that Dhimmicrats have forgotten those values...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 15, 2006 03:22 PM
70. Zippini - none needed. It is thanks to the D that 10s of millions were killed in WWII. If the Ds had kept to the word of the US by the document signed in 1918, WWII would never have happened. Hitler would have been stopped in the early 1930s, never being allowed to become a threat. But the D had to wait ten years later to follow up on the obligation the US had made. Typical - first line of defense is appeasement!

If you want to wait until after the war to decide if it is good, then we have a discussion. I said a comparable situation - in the D-day acion compared with the Iraqi action.

Get the comparison now?

Posted by: Fred on October 15, 2006 07:46 PM
71. Hi Fred-


The funniest (best) play on my pseudonym to date has been "zucchini". Yours is just okay funny.

So the Democrats are now responsible for starting WWII. Hmmm. Interesting. Not quite a mainstream viewpoint, but I guess one could argue it. Of course, it'd be a quite a stretch. What you call "appeasement" was at the time referred to as "isolationist". Democratic president Roosevelt did everything he could to drag the USA into WWII. I believe the opposition was mostly isolationist Republicans and domestic fascist sympathizers.

What I find kind of funny about your polemics is that your tribalism is misaligned. You use words like "Republicans" and "Democrats" as though they're cabals adhering to immutable schools of thought. Being the astute student of American history that you clearly are (haha), I'm sure you know the Republicans were the liberals at various times.


Cheers, Jason

Posted by: zappini on October 16, 2006 10:21 AM
72. Hi Fred-


The funniest (best) play on my pseudonym to date has been "zucchini". Yours is just okay funny.

So the Democrats are now responsible for starting WWII. Hmmm. Interesting. Not quite a mainstream viewpoint, but I guess one could argue it. Of course, it'd be a quite a stretch. What you call "appeasement" was at the time referred to as "isolationist". Democratic president Roosevelt did everything he could to drag the USA into WWII. I believe the opposition was mostly isolationist Republicans and domestic fascist sympathizers.

What I find kind of funny about your polemics is that your tribalism is misaligned. You use words like "Republicans" and "Democrats" as though they're cabals adhering to immutable schools of thought. Being the astute student of American history that you clearly are (haha), I'm sure you know the Republicans were the liberals at various times.


Cheers, Jason

Posted by: zappini on October 16, 2006 10:25 AM
73. "Being the astute student of American history that you clearly are (haha), I'm sure you know the Republicans were the liberals at various times."

Sort of...

Which is why it can be folly to try to reach back too far in order to paint comparisons or contrasts. The relative ideologies of the two parties in that particular era weren't enough different from their current-day contemporaries to invalidate Fred's point.

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 16, 2006 12:52 PM
74. I'm sure you're a fan of Scalia. It just so happens that he and Darcy agree on the issue of "terrorist rights." Care to respond? I didn't think so...

Posted by: Charles on October 17, 2006 07:56 AM
75. "Care to respond? I didn't think so... "

Sure, I care to.

Dumbass

There...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 17, 2006 09:29 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?