Gitmo

Posted at 6:32pm on Jun. 17, 2008 Allahpundit asks why Obama is beginning the walkback/sacrificial process on Gitmo.

I presume that it's a rhetorical question.

By Moe Lane

After all, Allahpundit's a smart guy; and besides the answer to why this little time bomb was slipped into the narrative...

And that is that we don’t have to treat these folks as US citizens. We don’t have to treat them in the same way that we would treat a criminal suspect in the U.S., but we should abide by the Geneva conventions. We should at least follow through on the same principals we followed though when dealing with Nazis during Nuremburg[*], that is not only the right thing to do but it also actually will strengthen our ability over the long term to fight terrorism."

...is fairly obvious:

13. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only special military tribunals should be allowed, because hearings in open court could compromise terrorism investigations.) What's your view - do you think these detainees should or should not be able to challenge their detentions in the civilian court system?

Should 34
Should not 61
No opinion 6
6/15/08

So, really, all that's left is the decision of which Obama staffer will regrettably need to be sacrificed in order to expiate Obama's dishonor. I imagine that health care for that campaign is deceptively easy to come by; after all, it's not like anybody lasts long enough to collect...

Moe Lane

Posted in | | | | Comments (32)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:05pm on Jun. 17, 2008 Do You Support Habeas Corpus Rights for Osama bin Laden?

John Kerry and Barack Obama Do

By Ben Domenech

From Michael Goldfarb, we learn an astounding fact: John Kerry supports granting Habeas Corpus rights to Osama bin Laden. From the NY Observer:

When asked by a reporter about the McCain campaign's assertion that Obama would want to give Osama Bin Laden habeas corpus rights, Kerry answered angrily.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights -- this is not Barack Obama, this is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president he'd have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. And it is typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is, say anything, no matter what the other side has said, just say it, people may believe it, unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and clearly. The truth is that this is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004 and the record absolutely contradicts it."

Obama himself, of course, already made the mistake of suggesting that granting habeas rights are just following the example of Nuremberg, where no such rights existed.

Conservatives would emphatically support Obama's position if it means as POTUS he would hold to the Nuremberg standard for international tribunals, since this measure would grant far fewer allowances for terrorists on trial than any court arranged by the current Administration. And it's not like Nuremberg was just a slaughterhouse - they acquitted more than one individual - they just weren't as interested in giving a whole slew of known killers and villains undeserved rights. Imagine if Nuremberg had the kind of allowances and presumptions of today's American courts? We'd have been arguing about these Nazis til the Reagan presidency.

It is a simple, straightforward, and reasonable position: Known terrorists, who have done nothing to earn the rights of American citizens but prove that they have varying degrees of skill in killing American citizens, should not have the same court experience as American citizens. The American people agree, emphatically rejecting the Obama-Kerry position in the ABC News/WaPo poll released today:

13. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only special military tribunals should be allowed, because hearings in open court could compromise terrorism investigations.) What's your view - do you think these detainees should or should not be able to challenge their detentions in the civilian court system?

Should 34%
Should not 61%
No Opinion 6%

Even on a question that convoluted, people have no qualms: access to the civilian court system is not a universal right, but a right that terrorists do not deserve. If caught alive, Osama bin Laden should be tried and executed. He should not be granted rights he has no claim to, by birthright or service or any other measure.

Barack Obama must answer this question: why does Osama bin Laden deserve these rights?

Posted in | | | | | Comments (123)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:21am on Apr. 2, 2007 BREAKING: SCOTUS hands POTUS a War Victory

By Erick

The Supreme Court has just rejected an appeal from terrorists at Gitmo who want to contest their detention in U.S. Courts. This is a huge win for the Bush administration. This post will be updated as more details come in from the decision.

Posted in | Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:50pm on Mar. 21, 2007 Importing Terrorists

By Rep. Tom Feeney

Liberal politicians bringing terrorists to American soil will invite liberal judges to endow them with previously undiscovered "constitutional rights."
Since taking power, Congressional Democrats' actions in the area of national security have been either inadequate or directly contrary to America's safety. A mere month after pushing a bill through the House that failed to implement important 9/11 Commission recommendations, key Democrats are reportedly planning to relocate terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to sites within the United States. America's brave men and women are fighting radical Islamic terrorists overseas so that we do not have to fight this battle at home, and Democrats are planning to undermine their sacrifices.

Any plan to welcome known terrorists to U.S. soil a few short years after 9/11 makes a mockery of the goal of national security. Terrorists are not common criminals, and they must be treated like the dangerous killers that they are. In 2000, Manhattan Metro Correctional Center inmate Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a high ranking al-Qaeda terrorist awaiting trial for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, attacked one of his prison guards and stabbed him in the eye with a sharpened comb. As a result of the stabbing, Louis Pepe, the prison guard, is now half-blind, half of his body is paralyzed, and he is unable to speak clearly. Considering that Guantanamo Bay holds the worst of the worst of America's "Most Wanted" terrorists, like the even more hardened and fanatical al-Qaeda members connected to the 9/11 attacks, it is madness to bring them into our country, into our back yard.

Read on . . .

Posted in | | Comments (13)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:51pm on Mar. 8, 2007 "How To Kill Americans In 10 Days Or Your Money Back," by Congressional Democrats

By Erick

If you are a terrorist, you have got to love the Democrats in charge of Congress. They are so interested in selling out the Bush administration, they are in the process of making it painfully easy for terrorists to kill us.

Despite being Mitchslapped, the Democrats in the Senate are preparing to vote against such wise policy objective as making it a crime to recruit people to commit terrorist acts and deporting suspected terrorists whose visas are revoked on terrorism grounds. They have also decided not to fund the border fence with Mexico, where the CIA has known for a while that the terrorist group Hezbollah is operating. Now the Democrats want to bring terrorists from Gitmo to the United States. Who are these terrorists they want to bring here? How's this for a list:

Khalid Shaikh Muhammad (KSM)-Mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks

Hambali-Mastermind behind the Bali Nightclub bombings of 2002

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri-Mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole

Abu Faraj al-Libi-Served as al-Qaeda's #3 from 2003 until his capture

Ramzi Bin al-Shibh-Key facilitator of the 9/11 attacks

Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi-Key financial planner and facilitator of 9/11 attacks

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailini- prior to his capture, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists

Ammar al-Baluchi-helped plan and facilitate the 9/11 attacks

Majid Khan-Top al-Qaeda deputy, planned to poison U.S. water reservoirs

"Lillie"-Suicide operative for al-Qaeda "second wave" attack in Los Angeles

Zayn al-Abidin Abu Zubaydah-Director of the Khaldan terrorist training camp

Zubair-Suicide operative for an al-Qaeda attack targeting Los Angeles

Walid Bin Attash-Usama Bin Laden's personal bodyguard

So, all you need to do is come across the border the Democrats won't close, make your way to the East Coast, recruit a few people to assist, and blow the masterminds out of jail. Don't worry, if they stop you, show them your forged visa. and if they revoke it, don't worry, you can't get deported immediately.

Thanks Democrats!

Posted in | Comments (3)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Syndicate content
 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service