Nancy Pelosi Proud To Support Al Qaeda's Rights
The democrat party is imploding before our eyes. In an official release by democrat House Minority Leader Ms. Pelosi had this to say.
WASHINGTON, June 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.
"The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
There you have it, democrats want Osama bin Laden to have the same rights as any U.S. citizen. Is this not unbelieveable? This definately makes the differences pretty clear for the upcoming election in November. You can either vote for the party that will protect America or vote for the party that worries about the rights of terrorists.
Hat tip: Hot Air
WASHINGTON, June 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.
"The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
There you have it, democrats want Osama bin Laden to have the same rights as any U.S. citizen. Is this not unbelieveable? This definately makes the differences pretty clear for the upcoming election in November. You can either vote for the party that will protect America or vote for the party that worries about the rights of terrorists.
Hat tip: Hot Air
posted by Capitalist Infidel at Thursday, June 29, 2006
10 Comments:
"You can either vote for the party that will protect America or vote for the party that worries about the rights of terrorists."
I gotta give you this, CJ - you're consistent. You've ALWAYS done a masterful job in your presentation of options. It's either option A or option B with you - never options C thru Z.
Is it possible - just POSSIBLE - to defend a nation AND respect due process at the same time?
Nancy Pelosi never misses a chance to degrade our president or the administration. No matter which side of the aisle a person is on, remarks such as this, never change.
Linda, I believe EVERYONE should be entitled to due process, regardless of the severity of the charges brought against them. Let's be clear - if they are, indeed, found guilty, I say fry 'em. However, we cannot automatically assume everyone we detain is guilty. If we do, we undermine the very principles of a legal system that's ultimately designed to protect innocent people. Wouldn't you agree?
You see, to Les Osama bin Laden has the same rights as you or I. To him the inevidable disclosure of national secrets that would be required in a case like that is irrelevent.
As all clear thinking individuals know the Geneva Convention was written with terrorists in mind. It's why they don't have protection. It's why it's legal to have them executed whenever they are found. The Geneva Convention was formed to make sure that terrorist (that Les loves so much) never see the inside of a courtroom.
If Osama were captured by U.S. soldiers this afternoon, should they immediately stand him up against the cave wall and shoot him?
Remember, the important part of that question was the word "captured". I'm not referring to the type of strikes that killed Zarqawi. That's completely different. Zarqawi was killed in the heat of battle. Nothing unethical about that, in my opinion.
However, if he had been captured, would it have been ok to walk up to him and put a bullet in his head? I don't think so.
Regarding bin Laden, what exactly do you guys have against trying him and THEN frying him?
Absolutely they should. The Geneva Convention explicitely permits it. Are you against the Convention? It's perfectly legal to line them up against a wall and summarily execute them. Why do you hate the Geneva Convention Les?
"Why do you hate the Geneva Convention Les?"
We kinda covered this in an earlier post, CJ. I don't hate the Geneva Conventions at all - I simply think you and I tend to disagree on its intent. Again, it's a question of scope. I agree the Geneva Conventions were designed to provide for the ethical treatment of legal combatants, but I think the flaw with Geneva is that the restrictions are lifted when dealing with illegal combatants. I, for one, think civility should be applied to ALL prisoners of war - legal OR illegal - while you obviously do not. It's not a question of legality, because you're right - Geneva is clear in its distinctions. For me, it's a question of morality. We're better than them, and I don't think we should be using Geneva's "quaint" limitations to undermine what I feel is one of its primary tenets - civility.
By the way -
"...(that Les loves so much)..."
Cute.
Terrorists deserve no civility. What on earth are you thinking Les?
Should we be there serving them coffee, tea, donuts...sending the welcome wagon around? I say we should just execute the lowdown scoundrels. That's the way it should have been. But now, the liberals want everything to be politically correct. How politically correct was it when they came on our soil and killed our people, left husbands and wives without spouses, children without mothers and fathers, parents without children? Oh yes, by all means, let us be civil to the evil terrorists. Let's give them every right known to mankind. The liberal way of thinking is "LET'S PLAY NICE, LET'S BE SENSITIVE TO THEIR WARPED NEEDS, LET'S SEE HOW FAST WE CAN FREE THE TERRORISTS SO THEY CAN COME AND KILL US ALL. LET'S BE SURE THEY HAVE DUE PROCESS.
"Terrorists deserve no civility."
Agreed. They deserve the firing squad.
Captured terror SUSPECTS, on the other hand, should be tried. Note the distinction? I have no problem whatsoever with the execution of terrorists once a guilty verdict has been read.
I'm not sure why you'd think I'd like to see terrorists released so they can hit us again, but I can assure you that's not the case. Am I worried that a few might slip through the cracks of the very legal system I've been defending here? Well, certainly - no system's perfect. Yet for all its flaws, the process itself IS the civility to which I refer.
Post a Comment
<< Home