Heaven Forbid!
Here is a story that boggles the mind. A convicted member of al Qaeda -- who was plotting to assassinate the President, mind you -- has lucked out with his judge.
Before Judge Bruce Lee will sentence the man, he wants to make sure that none of the evidence was obtained through warrantless eavesdropping -- lest it undermine the terrorist's constitutional rights. Yes, apparently that's the big problem . . . not what the terrorist was doing, but whether the information about it was obtained through a NSA wiretap.
Pathetic.
Before Judge Bruce Lee will sentence the man, he wants to make sure that none of the evidence was obtained through warrantless eavesdropping -- lest it undermine the terrorist's constitutional rights. Yes, apparently that's the big problem . . . not what the terrorist was doing, but whether the information about it was obtained through a NSA wiretap.
Pathetic.
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:21 PM
11 Comments:
So I take it you are opposed to all Fourth Amendement jurisprudence from the founding of our nation forward?
I guess the only allowable use of NSA intel is to put a bullet in the person before they can carry out their plan.
That would be cheaper than a trial by a couple orders of magnitude.
As for me, I'm opposed to all IV Amendment jurisprudence that prevents us from defending ourselves from the nefarious actions of a bunch of homicidal maniacs. There must be some common sense applied to this WoT if we are going to have any chance of winning.
So I'll have to correct my previous statement where I said that the Democratic Party is the party of irresponsibility. It's the party of non-sensical irresponsibility.
I wonder if that same judge thinks it's a bad idea to hand over port administration to UAE?
The left sure seems to like the profiling politics of that mess.
Carol -
The judge probably (I'm guessing) wants the ability to give the harshest possible sentence. Before he can do that, he wants to make it appeal-proof. Otherwise, a harsh sentence leads to an appeal, leading to a thrown-out conviction . . .
I don't like the concept either, but I see it more as a pre-emptive strike of what the defense would do anyway, rather than the judge just being a civil-liberty rogue.
Carol - I could see you starting a thread (if you were so inclinded) in educating us about how criminal procedure is reconciled with rules of war.
As I said above, I believe the judge was trying to anticipate (and stop) a defense appeal to overturn a conviction. But that invites the more basic question: Why are we applying criminal defense protections to al qaida?
As I understand, aiding and abetting an enemy of the US is treason. If an attorney gives counsel to a member of Al-Qaida on our soil -- um sorry, but why are the defense attorneys not facing charges of treason for giving aid/comfort to Al Qaida?
Please draw some lines for us as to where one set of rules stops and another starts. If you know.
There's a difference between prosecuting criminals and prosecuting a war. It's a lack of understanding of this most basic and elementary principle that makes Democrats so dangerous.
There is a sizable contingent of people alive today who faced down the war machines of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. They did not spit on the Constitution of the United States out of fear. No, they made the United States the arsenal of Democracy and the last great hope of man.
For a half of a century, we stood toe to toe with an implacable adversary armed with thermonuclear weapons and a desire to destroy our way of life. We did not whimper and whine about how scary things were and choose to spit on the Constitution of the United States. No, we were the shining city on the hill, a beacon of freedom in a darkened world.
And what have become of the children of these patriots? They have turned into a bunch of whiny ass titty babies who wet themselves with fear in the face of cave dwelling goat herders from Afghanistan. We hear them mewling, "Pwease, pwease stwong, bwave Pwesident Bush, here are the fweedoms of ancestors died to pass on to us. We will give them all to you if you pwomise to pwotect us from all of those mean men with box cutters."
What a pathetic bunch of thumb-sucking losers.
I think it is more important to protect the Constitution during times like these than it is during times of war -- or else we become more and more like those we are fighting against and the fight begins to lose all meaning.
Unfortunately I saw Twisters post above taken straight from the mind melding of the Daily Kos. Please just stay over there. If over 80% of the military wasn't conservative, you'd be hiding behind Oprah Winfrey's Berka skirt.
Mr. Twister incredibly wrote:
There is a sizable contingent of people alive today who faced down the war machines of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. They did not spit on the Constitution of the United States out of fear
Your opinion, then, on the internment of Japanese-Americans and also the Offic of Censorship.
Post a Comment
<< Home