You articulate the standard Democrat approach, which is to treat terrorism as a criminal matter. After 9/11, thoughtful people realized that it was imperative to reassess that approach, as it badly failed us. More accurately, the institutions, eg FBI, CIA, and their staff failed us. The problem is, we can tolerate such failures in domestic law enforcement, because the consequences are limited. With terrorism, the consequences of failure can be monumental. No one is happy with the concept of detaining people without habeas protection, but it is unrealistic and naive to state that if we can't prosecute them, we should just let them go. What if prosecuting them would necessarily reveal the existence of undercover agents or the ability to break codes or monitor communications? What if evidence of their complicity was obtained by warrantless foreign searches? The mafia analogy is partially relevant, but the mafia is not going to set off nukes in major cities. One of these guys might.
I don't know about it being a purely democrat view, but I agree that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. should have been handled as a criminal matter vs. turning America into a Country led by fear mongering. The 3 oz of liquid, strip searching TSA, who hire the unemployable in most cases, has done a lot to our way of life. The "fight them over there before we have to fight them here" nonsense satisfied a great number of Americans, and proved to be just another ridiculous extreme talking point. Why should they come here if we keep sending our children over there? The discussion about keeping prisoners without any proof that would hold up in a court of law is like saying let's just hang anyone that we can't prove broke any laws. This is not the America I grew up in, and I hope it never turns to that. We can run thousands of drug users and dealers through the judicial system, why can't we do the same with a few hundred people suspected of being part of some possible group that might be thinking about doing something at some possible time in the future? Being anti Iraq war does not mean that you have to be some extreme liberal, as proven by the fact that such a small percentage of Americans support the stupid thing. And, it doesn't mean we don't support the troops, that is just another very stupid talking point that doesn't even deserve discussion. If we keep concenration camps without applying some justice, then we appear much like the real bad guys from ww2. If we can't rely on the evidence that brought these people to Gitmo, and we can't rely on the intelligence that was blamed for the Iraq war, then we have a lot bigger problem than the few hundred suspects waiting for something to happen. c
I understand your point of view, and as I said, I'm not crazy about the government having the authority to detain people without a right to challenge it in federal court. It's not quite as simple as not having proof that will "hold up in court" however. Let's say the government had the ability to eavesdrop on Osama bin Ladin and learned that someone was an al qaeda operative. Do we want to have to choose between letting him go and revealing how we got the evidence? It's another good reason to limit immigration and visas from muslim countries.
(Defining terrorist) Good point, a criminal is a criminal. If he takes out a building with explosives, then you can call him whatever you want, the crime is still a crime. I personally don't like the idea of labeling, but it seems to be working for those who are capitalizing on it. c
One could make the argument that by allowing Muslims from middle eastern countries to come here, would allow us to potentially obtain information about their terrorist cells. You know, take them into a room, force them to listen to Rush Limfat, Man Coulter, Sean Hammity for a day, and they would tell you anything just to stop the insanity of the right wing crazies... Oh, and to your what if about Bin Laden... What if we had simply followed Israel's practice of locking the pilot's cabin doors in airplanes.... Doh! We don't have to surrender our freedoms to be safe from our own government's spying on us, that is a complete logical fallacy... Really, here is what cracks me up about ET klans, they need to have unregistered guns and ammo which is why we have school shootings, why kids have gun accidents and kill themsevles, gang problems, etc., need to ride motorcycles without helmets, they need to smoke and drink like fish...they won't mandate technology that exists to prevent drunk drivers, they allow pollutants and chemicals in our air, food, and water...but they are scared to death of Muslim terrorists. Makes no sense, but there you go...the klan is terrified of Muslim terrorists, but is fearless about drunk drivers, gun accidents, cancer from pollutants, etc. I got it, they fear terrorists because they destroy capital investments like the Twin Towers, human life? Expendable as long as there is profit in it for corporations or as long as dying is by the drug of choice...
Says the Fabian Socialist who fancies himself a 'reasoned moderate'. Oh, like the way you label me a 'Paulie fanatic'? But that doesn't count cause ONLY Liberals have a monopoly on Truth Telling!! The current situation was brought on by the very extremist thought you now call "moderate"!! - The Federal Reserve. - The Income Tax. - The "New Deal". All Socialist wetdreams that fermented and rotted into the putrefied mass we now call the United States of America. Those programs - be it Fed money creation or Gov Handouts - have been ABUSED ENORMOUSLY AND NOW THREATEN THE VERY LIFE OF THE COUNTRY ITSELF. These programs you tout as 'progressive' and 'ahead of their time' turned into a LIFE OF THEIR OWN and NOW OWN THE COUNTRY WAKE UP. This is why those "radical fanatics" we call the FOUNDING FATHERS made steadfast warnings to resist the enemy at the gate. The Country is going down fast and most everyone with their head screwed on straight knows it. We will be lucky to survive it with our basic Freedoms... No, Comrade. Im paraphrasing the intolerant mantra you live by. IOW, if you dont agree with me and my principles, you're not credible... There is nothing radical about the Constitution. And thats all we represent. You and your ilk love to invoke the *idea* of the Constitution when it serves your political purpose. But when the Bill of Rights stands against you opposed, you switch teams and deride Constitutional Defenders as 'radicals' and 'fanatics'. This is whats known in political circles as being a Shill. Who said anything about plumbing or modern medicine or air conditioning?? What is it about the Bill of Rights you dont get? Its quite clear for all to see. Would you really be so glum if the Fed didn't inflate away your savings? Or maybe you'd miss the IRS digging through your personal life with shovel and pick axe? No, Comrade. Im just a Constitutionalist. And if that makes me a "Kook" in your books, well, that just illustrates how far and how deep we've degenerated as a Country. Take a look around. Like what you see? Like where we're going?? You keep voting for it, Francis.
why do you think criminal laws and rules regarding burdens of proof, evidence, and trials exist? just for the hell of it? maybe teddy kennedy and his hippie buddies just screwing with you? or maybe, do you think, they could have developed in response to thousands of years of abuses by people exercising the power of the state at whim for profit or revenge? if there is no trial, who exactly determines that they are unfit for release? as you correctly stated above, the morons making these decisions are the same class of people who tried like hell to lock 3 innocent students in a cell based on the uncorroborated assertions of a drugged-up prostitute. the same ones responsible for waco and ruby ridge. the ones that go after glaucoma patients for smoking the wrong plant. the same ones prosecuting "hate crimes" while ignoring the flood at the mexican border. and who may someday be under the command of president hillary. would YOU trust hillary with the power to decide in secret whether AAA is fit or unfit for release, even if they can't "prove" anything?
Hillary, wielding the power that Bush has weaseled his way into obtaining in the name of National Security is the right wing's worst nightmare. I bet AAA soils himself just thinking about it, wakes up in a cold sweat imagining Hillary in the office of the presidency abusing power the way Bush has... Sweet dreams right wingers... <img src=http://www.erosblog.com/sex-blog-pictures/hillary-dominatrix.jpg>