Redstate

pweeze

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

http://www.foxnews.com/specialreport/index.html
You click on Special Report Panel and see if it changes from June 16 to June 17.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

HUME: That drew a sharp response from the McCain campaign in the form of a statement by, among others, Randy Scheunemann, who is one of McCain's foreign policy advisors.

"Obama," he says, "holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than as a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11," another line rather clearly drawn between the two candidates on an issue of some consequence.

Charles, your view of this debate?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, the McCain side has the right argument, but it has to make it in detail. It has to explain why the trial was a disaster in 1993.

HUME: Why was it?

KRAUTHAMMER: Because when you give these people the rights of an ordinary burglar — the rights to a lawyer, the rights of discovery — you end up giving them information that you would never give an enemy combatant, which we did.

In that trial, in 1993, we had to give them the name of 200 un- indicted coconspirators, names which immediately ended up in bin-Laden's camp, and they knew what we knew and who we knew.

At the same trial, as the current Attorney General will tell you, because he was the judge in that case, in discovery, the other side learned that we had been listening in on the cellular communications of bin-Laden. Within a week it was shot down, and we lost him, and we couldn't find him for a long time.

It's information you would never divulge, but it's only because these guys had the rights of an ordinary criminal, stuff you would never do against an enemy.

The worst example was 1996, in which the Sudan, where bin-Laden was living, got tired of him and offered him to the United States. And the Clinton administration refused to accept him on the grounds that we did not have sufficient evidence to sustain an indictment.

That is insane. That is not a standard on which you judge somebody who wants to destroy your country. In the Second World War, we had over 300,000 German prisoners. Not one was given a lawyer or habeas or discovery or any of these insane rights.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

Best quote from Krauthammer: "That is insane."

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

Incitement is a crime where the speaker intends to encourage violence and the words are likely to cause the intended violence. I don't think there would be any trouble convicting Bin Laden himself, and presumably the main charges would be conspiracy to commit murder/terrorism, not incitement. The real question is whether we would want the public spectacle of the trial and whether we would want to give Bin Laden a podium to speak in his defense.

The real interesting question is the one posed by the title: How do we know that we are allowed to kill Bin Laden without a trial but we can't hold other terrorists with a trial? I haven't heard that question posed before, and I can't imagine what the liberal position would be. Surely killing a person is a great deprivation than holding him for the duration of hostilities. Maybe the question is somewhat easier for Bin Laden himself, because he has publicly admitted to thousands of murders, but the question is even more difficult for mid-level Al Qeada operatives. Surely we should be able to kill them without a trial, but how can you justify that, and not justify holding them for the duration of hostilities?

we were at war. Plus, we had a President who would have publically skinned alive any members of the opposition party who abetted the enemy the way today's version of the Democrats have.

You can lay the responsibility for this decision squarely at the clay feet of GWB and his constant refusal to call the Dems on their repeated lies about the war and his unsillingness to keep the issue in front of the American people. He's pursued the right course in Iraq, and 100% wrong course here at home.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

question asking who is to blame for anything negative is not GWB.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Anthony Kennedy is typical of a "moderate" Republican appointee to the courts. Like most "moderates", he sees the accolades the media showers on his liberal brethren, he sees their regular invitations to hobnob with the glitteratti and he sees the already hagiographical write-ups of their tenure on the court in the history books. And he wants some of that.

Let me be clear here; I believe practically every single one of the Justices that have served in the SCOTUS in its 219 year history would much sooner die than accept money to change their vote on a case. But what is offered by the liberal establishment in the media, academia and considering the leanings of most of the legal profession, legal history, is something a lot more lustrous than money. Especially for a person with life-long tenure - a place in history on the side of the angels, and recognition for it while you're still alive.

It's hard not to knuckle under to. It's what's been called succumbing to the (Linda) "Greenhouse Effect" or hankering for "Strange New Respect." It's what moved John Paul Stevens from being a moderatively conservative Justice to being one of its most reflexively liberal in history.

Unlike the other Justices who have a defined judicial philosophy that they stick to for good or ill, whether it be originalist/textualist like Antonin Scalia or preference/results-oriented like Stephen Breyer, I think as a "moderate" Kennedy's votes on controversial cases hinge a great deal on which direction the wind is blowing - what the headlines would say about his ruling tomorrow.

So what does this have to do with President Bush, especially since he did not appoint Kennedy and both his SCOTUS picks voted right? Simple. He failed, and deliberately so, to do what was necessary to maintain public support for the war.

If the war was still considered to be one that was worth starting, continuing and finishing by the public because Bush didn't allow his New Tone™ to stop him from forcefully setting the record straight when the Democrats and their friends in the media took up and started marching behind the BushLied™ fallacy, there's a very strong chance Kennedy's wet finger would have gone cool in the right direction.

"(A)nd deliberately so, to do what was necessary to maintain public support for the war." Very well put. I believe that Bush will get credit in history for his reaction to 9/11, especially if we continue to achieve stability in the country/region. But he shouldn't get a free pass for his errors in judgement.

Not uncommon. FDR gets praise for his general conduct of WW II, but still can be faulted for the decisions at Yalta. HST, like Bush, had good instinctive initial reactions for Korea, but allowed public support for victory to be neutered by State and the media.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Today on Fox News: The usual criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is a towering mind and a small ego. Kennedy seems to have gotten it reversed.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

I'm not a Bush hater but I'm not wearing green eye shades either...The "New Tone" refusal of W to call the Dems on their excesses is a large part of whay we are where we are as a Party.

It's a small quibble but a quibble non the less!

:>)

problems in tx is eyeshades...but I know whereof you speak.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I'm not talking about Bush's nominees dissent or lack thereof.....maybe I misread you above?... I'm speaking about Bush's inability and in many cases his outright refusal to sell his policies and his many instances of starting a fight with the Dems and assembling Republican troops for battle only to surrender the field to the enemy before the first shot is fired!

but the claim you echoed that Bush is at fault for this 5-4 SCOTUS decision is not one of them. Bush is the best judge appointer the GOP has ever had, and his guys voted right. That the new CINC Kennedy demands to be lobbied like he's a voter and not a judge sworn to follow the law is HIS fault, not Bush's for making the war stay popular against an msm in the lib tank and timid gop senators that have refused to call out their DIS-honorable un-patriotic enemy emboldening colleagues for 5 years.

amen?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

then you do indeed misunderstand...or I wasn't clear...I was seconding someone else's post that Bush has hurt us by not defending and selling his policies. Nothing more

I know Roberts and Alito dissented...and rightly so...and Bush had nothing to do with this recent decision on that we've always agreed and there's no dispute.

Savvy?

Let there be peace at the Loan Star table where Aces and Gamecocks share the warmth of a good fire and the fellowship of dusty travelers

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

sometimes a lawyer plays devil's advocate to push you

since you can't reach me here!

I savvy brother man

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

is that symbol a smile, sideways

or

a suggestion that I am MAD?

my initials are m*a*d

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

LOL...it's a sideways smile...but now that you mention it...you do come off kind of mad in a truely psychotic kind of way...LOL

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

McCain and the Dems have made me Schizophrenic because just when I think I can vote for McCain he goes and makes a Cap & Trade speech, or promises to use the Federal Government to regulate people's pay check or dis Billy Graham so I decide there is now way this side of Heaven I can vote for him...then the Dems decided they're gonna socialize the Oil Industry and off I gp into McCain's arms again...

I'm a T Totaler...but this is all enough to drive me to drinking!

ROFL