Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Supreme Court To Face Mecca

That's the title of Ann Coulter's latest..and boy, is she spot on:

Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less "amateurish" and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.

Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)

That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.

Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.

Either the five liberal justices demanding constitutional rights for terrorists are out of their minds, or the religious worship of President Franklin D. Roosevelt has got to stop. According to liberal logic in the war on terrorism, FDR was a bloodthirsty war criminal.

When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.

Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen -- who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI -- got 30 years.

The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.

Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).

Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.

How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?

But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.

So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")

Read the rest here....

Our Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact, and the Court has re-affirmed that many times. Unfortunately, it appears that we have some Supreme Court Justices who have yet to figure that out.

please helps me write more gooder!


Anonymous said...

But as I have said before and I will say again, we were in a declared war when those sabateours were arrested and executed. Congress needs to declare war and then all these other rules will apply. Since you like tor ead other posts, read mine all about this

Freedom Fighter said...

Oh, I totally concur IP.

But a declared war would have involved Dubbyah actually naming who the enemy was and he and the family were a bit too close to the House of Saud and the UAE for that.

Imagine if instead of telling us that Islam means peace, calm down and go shopping Bush had said that our enemy was Islamist facism and asked for a carte blanche declaration of war against al-Qaeda and any country harboring or financing Islamist terrorism?

This war would have been long over and Bush would have left office with 80% approval ratings.

Actually, that's pretty much what the Bush Doctrine was, except it was never run through Congress as our Constitution mandates.

That meant that he had to 'sell' every aspect of it individually to Congress, like Iraq or wireless surveillance.