The new House leadership discovers that, at least when it comes to setting counter-terrorism policy on terrorist eavesdropping and detention, it was easier to criticize from the minority than govern from the front:
“If you just say you’re standing up for civil liberties, the American people are with you, but if you say terrorism suspects should have civil liberties, it stretches Americans’ tolerance,” said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who along with Hastings represents Congress on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a human rights monitor. “It’s a tough issue for us…”
(Florida Rep. Alcee) Hastings predicted that administration officials will announce that the current permissive law has thwarted terrorist attacks and saved lives but will withhold details as classified.
“Then Bush walks all the way to the end of his administration with no changes,” he said.
No, not that. Can’t anyone do something?!?
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
“I’s a tough issue for us…” That appears to be the mantra of this majority from ethics to logic. (I heard similar phrasing from a few who stockpile plastic wrap & duct tape on the off chance…)
Cap’n,
What does this ‘Watchdog’ organization do? To whom are they accountable?
If they made the statement in the context of European affairs, why are they complaining about the current Administration? Somethings not right here.
Let’s remember that Ben Cardin was elected from the People’s Republic of Maryland, and Alcee Hastings is a certified “Impeachable Source” having been impeached by the House of Representatives for accepting bribes while he was a Federal judge, and then convicted by the United States Senate and removed from the bench.
“I’s a tough issue for us…”
Yes, but of course it wasn’t tough for them, now was it? What with them being all tyrannical and not giving a hoot about civil liberties, those evil old baddies…
Reminds me of those that look at professional racing and say, “Well, how hard can that be? I drive to work easily enough.” As if just anyone could do it. Things sure look a lot different from the driver’s seat.
Frankly I don’t see what is so “tough” about the issue…if they are speaking in defense of the civil liberties of law abiding American citizens who are not plotting to kill their fellow Americans in terrorist attacks, then I fully support those liberties as they are defined & protected by our Constitution.
Terrorist suspects – American citizens or otherwise? Not so much.
That commission is also known as the Helsinki Commission. Among many press releases on their website, I found this little gem on oil & democracy.
I remember back during the 04 campaign, listening to John Kerry, and thinking to myself that a list of complaints about the cuurent administration and state of the world is NOT A PLAN. It seemed like anytime anyone asked him what his plans were, he just went into his list of things that he thought Bush did wrong.
Jeopardy – methinks you’ve just described the current Democratic campaign platform.
Here’s the thing: They do have a bit of a point.
Terror suspects, if American citizens, deserve the civil rights owed to them under the constitution. That’s a domestic law enforcement issue.
On that I’ll have to agree with them.
Foreign Terrorists found on foreign soil are not obviously not subject to American civil law. They are military enemies. If they wear uniforms, respect a chain of command, and surrender peacefully, they have rights under the Geneva Convention.
If they don’t abide by the Geneva Convention, they are spies. Spies can be shot.
What the liberals want us to think is that they are campaigning for the American rights of American citizens on American soil be respected.
That’s a load of manure, of course, What they want is for foreign terrorists in foreign lands to be given the same presumption of innocence as domestic criminals.
Well, most domestic criminals anyways. As I’ve been saying for a while, the only time liberals will fight for your right to bear arms and practice your religion is if you’re a Muslim, and shooting at Americans.