July 22, 2005
Civil rights and catching stupid terrorists
I am impressed by the way the Brits are handling the recent attacks in London. They are much less PC than we are. Most terrorists are cognitively challenged, but it also helps that Brits have their priorities straight about privacy versus catching crooks. Authorities have pictures of the bad guys because they have cameras all around London. They are showing these electronic wanted posters to the public and demanding the support of all communities. As I watched the London Police Commissioner’s press conference, it struck me on how this would be nearly impossible in the U.S. Think of the outcry about privacy, profiling etc.
We need to protect our rights, but we don't need to be so hypersensitive that we go overboard protecting people who want to kill us. Life is a precondition for all other rights, and freedom from fear is precondition of good life.
Rights are meant to protect the innocent, not establish a level playing field between the good guys and the bad guys. People don't have a right to commit crimes and acts of terror, nor to do they have a right to protect or support those who do. I am glad that our legislators were smart enough to renew the Patriot Act. At least our authorities have tools almost as good as those available to their counterparts in the UK or France. That doesn't make me worry about my liberties, but it does make me feel safer. It sure is worth it.
Posted by Jack at July 22, 2005 11:00 AMYou are right about “political correctness” being carried to the point of the ridiculous here in the US. Too bad it’s going to take a war on terror to get people to realize that when a person commits a heinous crime he loses his rights to privacy and freedom. Nowhere else in the world is law enforcement afraid to publish pictures of criminals in the newspaper if they are not white for fear of being called racist. Nowhere else do child molesters have a protected status when they are released from prison so that families with kids have to worry they may move into the neighborhood. The obsession with treating everybody equally is a hard burden to bear, especially with world terrorism on the rise from a specific group of hatemongers.
-Monica
Posted by: Monica at July 22, 2005 11:33 AMNowhere else in the world is law enforcement afraid to publish pictures of criminals in the newspaper if they are not white for fear of being called racist.
Link?
Nowhere else do child molesters have a protected status when they are released from prison so that families with kids have to worry they may move into the neighborhood.
“Protected status?” What? Link?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 11:40 AMJack -
When I visited London two years ago, I was insensed by the number of CCTV cameras. They’re everywhere. And I think I ranted against them on my blog.
Now, however, I’m not so sure. Not only have the terrorist attacks shown their usefulness, but the attacks have also shown that the video isn’t constantly monitored and isn’t easy to use. That’s comforting: it’s there when you really need it, but not just for fun, like tracking political opponents or peaceful dissidents.
Of course, technology is changing fast, and I’m sure they’ll be able to survey large areas with ease in the not-too-distant future.
As well, suicide bombers aren’t going to be put off by after-the-fact surveillance. I think the New York subway had a better idea by increasing police presence and checking bags. The success of this approach was highlighted by the incident on the London Tube today, where similar police watchfulness led to the death of one alleged suicide bomber, and the saving of who-knows-how-many lives.
Posted by: Chops at July 22, 2005 11:44 AMHeh. Those cameras were installed to fight the IRA during the 80’s. Did the British ever succeed in using violence against the IRA? How DID the IRA get beaten? Oh YES, that’s right!!! The British TALKED to them!!! They studied them!!! They tried to address the Irish Catholics’ grievances!!!
Well. Good Thing BushCo won’t be using those Girlie Liberal Methods in the War on Terror!!! Th e US will just nuke the Evil Bastards!!! Or Better yet, use Neutron Bombs!!! That way we get the oil without the radioactivity.
Posted by: Aldous at July 22, 2005 12:02 PMIt was especially encouraging to see the British Police chase a suspect “in a heavy coat” into the subway this morning knock him off his feet and proceed to shoot him to death in front of the viewing public.
One less trial, no cost of incarceration, no chance for him to become a shining example for others to follow. Way to go Brits.
Maybe you could send a few guys over here and show us how you conduct a search for these terrorists.
Posted by: steve smith at July 22, 2005 12:37 PMAldous said…..
“Well. Good Thing BushCo won’t be using those Girlie Liberal Methods in the War on Terror!!! Th e US will just nuke the Evil Bastards!!! Or Better yet, use Neutron Bombs!!! That way we get the oil without the radioactivity.”
Well said Aldous, you are finally coming around.
You are close to the “big hole” theory.
Unfortunately the sarcasm bell rings loudly through your words and we on the right will be unable to count on your support.
Aldous
Talking to the terrorist? Do you have a phone number? Grievances? These include things like the situation in Russian and China (which we don’t control), U.S. bases in Saudi (now gone), and my personal favorite – the Andalusia debacle. They want Spain back. We are studying the terrorists and have either stopped several attacks on the U.S. or made the terrorist not want to do them for the past five years.
The IRA was vicious and deadly, but they were small potatoes compared to bin Laden and his boys. As far as I know, the IRA never targeted Irish children accepting candy bars. They didn’t take beheading and brag about them.
steve—
One less trial, no cost of incarceration, no chance for him to become a shining example for others to follow. Way to go Brits.
Obviously, someone who, through reasonable belief, presents an immediate danger to those around them should be stopped by any means necessary…but I find it a little troubling that you would applaud the extrajudical killing of a suspect simply because it avoids the cost of incarceration or a “trial.”
That’s pretty dangerous thinking, in my opinion.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 12:59 PMMattLaw-
A lot of people are sick to death of a judicial system in which the victims of crime stand little or no chance of receiving justice and no chance at all of timely justice. That is why we applaud the Brits in this case. Meanwhile our own terrorist suspects are at Guantanamo Bay with the anti-American “rights” groups all concerned about their welfare. It makes me sick!
-Monica
Posted by: Monica at July 22, 2005 01:24 PMA lot of people are sick to death of a judicial system in which the victims of crime stand little or no chance of receiving justice and no chance at all of timely justice. That is why we applaud the Brits in this case. Meanwhile our own terrorist suspects are at Guantanamo Bay with the anti-American “rights” groups all concerned about their welfare. It makes me sick!
Do you have any evidence to suggest that “little justice” is served in America’s criminal courts? Can you give examples?
It really troubles me seeing Americans refer to rights guaranteed under our Constitution as “sick.”
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 01:29 PMLeave it to a liberal to cut to the chase, what have we have been thinking all this time? You’re absolutely right Aldous, the terrorists are misunderstood, so I vote to send Aldous as our first ambassador to reach out to the terrorists. Please let Mr. Zarqawi know that we’ve been wrong and that if he really wants to have a state of extreme theocracy, oppression of women and children, murdering political adversaries, and a continued jihad against Christians and Jews, well then who are we to say no. In fact why don’t we hand over Israel as a peace offering, I mean I would hate to anger them anymore. Let’s continue to ask ourselves what more can we do for the terrorists because their goal and mission is so noble. So good luck Aldous let us know how that meeting turns out, I have a vague idea what might happen.
Posted by: Jay at July 22, 2005 02:07 PMAll,
Let’s not waste time with the extremism of certain other bloggers in this post anymore (starts with an A and ends with an ldous). They are liberal cowards and they just post nonsense and run away.
There are certainly ways of combating terrorism that are more effective than others.
These recent studies out of Saudi Arabia and Israel suggest that the current “flypaper” theory of the War in Iraq is bogus, because many are becoming militant because of the occupation itself.
Is this an effective way to combat terrorism?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 02:37 PMMattLaw-
It is a mockery of justice that we have convicted serial killers and child molesters in our prisons while their victims are in their graves and their families’ lives are ruined. Several months ago there was an article in the local newspaper about a man released from prison who had repeatedly molested children. He was having a hard time finding a neighborhood that would accept him! In a sane society the guy would have been executed the day it was determined he was posed a threat to kids. The same goes for monsters who kill people for no reason except their own cruelty. The insanity plea is another mockery of justice. There is a point at which kindness and understanding are not only misplaced, but even dangerous. Many people agree with me.
-Monica
Posted by: Monica at July 22, 2005 02:38 PMThe problem with pervasive surveillance, is who is doing the watching and what are they doing with what they see. It may seem like a good idea now but do we ever get our privacy back?
As for extremism Kevin, Steve Smith just applauded the British Police for knocking someone down and shooting them to death in front of the viewing public. Perhaps it was necessary, but is it really something we should be celebrating?
All this talk leads me to beleive that if we are willing to change our way of life so much, are we really winning the “War on Terror”?
Posted by: monkeywerks at July 22, 2005 02:49 PMMonkeyworks,
I don’t condone celebrating the death of anyone. Is there reason to be happy that a person who could have killed other innocent people not be able to do so? Yes! I’m not celebrating his death, Im celebrating the safety of innocent people.
It is a mockery of justice that we have convicted serial killers and child molesters in our prisons while their victims are in their graves and their families’ lives are ruined.
It’s a “mockery of justice” that…convicted felons are in prison?
Several months ago there was an article in the local newspaper about a man released from prison who had repeatedly molested children. He was having a hard time finding a neighborhood that would accept him!
Repeated offenders such as this should be in prison for life. Why aren’t they? Often because of prison overcrowding. Thank the “War on Drugs.”
In a sane society the guy would have been executed the day it was determined he was posed a threat to kids. The same goes for monsters who kill people for no reason except their own cruelty.
Anyone convicted of a crime deserves the right to appeal their conviction. Surely you’re not asserting that innocent people are NEVER convicted of crimes they didn’t commit?
The insanity plea is another mockery of justice. There is a point at which kindness and understanding are not only misplaced, but even dangerous.
The “insanity plea” (not guilty by reason of insanity) is rarely used and even more rarely successful, and is not even available in every state.
Many people agree with me.
…and many agree that those rights guaranteed to every American by our Constitution must be defended for the sake of everyone.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 02:59 PMRepeated offenders such as this should be in prison for life. Why aren’t they? Often because of prison overcrowding. Thank the “War on Drugs.”
By all means, let the drug offenders out!
Posted by: Kevin at July 22, 2005 03:12 PMMonica,
A lot of people are sick to death of a judicial system in which the victims of crime stand little or no chance of receiving justice and no chance at all of timely justice.
Perhaps you and all those who support this view would prefer the judicial system we had until the latter 60’s where police officials simply beat confessions from innocent people, or where those accused of a crime had NO right to an attorney. People were convicted (and many sentenced to death) because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they “looked like” someone. I hear all of you complaining, complaining, complaining… about our judicial system, but let you, your child or someone else you love fall victim to being arrested, tried, and convicted of something they did not do and see how loud you cry then. Our system, while FAR FROM PERFECT was designed to PROTECT THE INNOCENT! Unfortunately, that means sometimes the guilty do go free…far better than convicting even one innocent man.
Monica,
1.
Nowhere else do child molesters have a protected status when they are released from prison so that families with kids have to worry they may move into the neighborhood.
It is totally preposterous to say that convicted sex offenders have a protected status upon release. here is 1 link:http://web.co.merced.ca.us/da/so_index.htm
There are many many more if you would like further info. Just yesterday, someone I know had the Sheriff show up on her doorstap and give her a written notice that a sex offender had moved next door. (Mercer County, West Virginia)Granted these requirements don’t always work so well, and I too think there needs to be changes, but sex offenders do NOT have a protected status like you refer.
2.
A lot of people are sick to death of a judicial system in which the victims of crime stand little or no chance of receiving justice and no chance at all of timely justice.
I know myself and a vast amount of people I know, “are sick to death” of having other people mistakenly confuse justice with revenge. NO WHERE in our constitution or our justice system does it permit revenge. I’d venture to say that yourself and “a lot of other” people to which you refer want just that: revenge. There is a huge difference in the two.
Jay,
You’re absolutely right Aldous, the terrorists are misunderstood, so I vote to send Aldous as our first ambassador to reach out to the terrorists.
It doesn’t require ANYONE to be sent anywhere to reach out to the terrorists. It simply takes the US citizens to get our heads out of whatever hole of blindness we have created for ourselves and to hold our government (THIS one as well as ALL those in the past and future)accountable for their actions. Remember: WE CREATED OSAMA BIN LADEN… (Me, You and everyone else in this collection belonging to “We the People of the United States…) Once he no longer served our purpose, we simply turned our back on him and all the others like him. I guarantee you, and all the rest of us would feel so betrayed we’d be ready to inflict all the terror we could muster against the US if we were in their shoes.
Look, I am in no way condoning the acts of terror purpetrated by terrorist factions, all I am saying is Don’t be BLIND!! LOOK at the BIG PICTURE. The US is not the innocent victim we like to portray.
J. Anthony Matel,
Rights are meant to protect the innocent…
I am glad that our legislators were smart enough to renew the Patriot Act.
First of all, these 2 sentences contradict each other. Second, The Patriot Act that was just renewed, the one that makes you feel so much safer…totally destroyed your right to private medical records, and many of the other provisions in place to
“protect the innocent”But, I guess that’s ok because you feel safe.
Most terrorists are cognitively challenged
What??? Please provide a link to back up this….statement made from lack of cognition about the people to whom you refer. Also…I guess it depends on what / who you are calling a terrorist? Personally, I feel less safe and more threatened in the last 5 years from our own govt. and our own citizens than any outside regime.
Thanks for listening all, sassy
Posted by: sassyliberal at July 22, 2005 03:15 PM
The reason I believe in killing the terrorists is that their life is dedicated to hate, terror, and the elimination of anybody that opposses them. They seek death and destruction to one and all even their own kind.
The only cure is to eliminate the problem. Read that to say kill them.
The deviation from terrorism in mentioning criminals and their treatment suggest that more prisons be built. And when an accused is taken before court that delays should not be done. I have witnessed in our local court system delays of up to 2 years before sentencing. This must be brought under control.
By all means, let the drug offenders out!
The fact is, drug crime DOMINATES every level of the judicial system. People who have been convicted of having a small (sometimes inadvertent) connection to a drug conspiracy receive mandatory sentences that will place them in a cell longer than many murderers or rapists.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 03:30 PMThe reason I believe in killing the terrorists is that their life is dedicated to hate, terror, and the elimination of anybody that opposses them. They seek death and destruction to one and all even their own kind. The only cure is to eliminate the problem. Read that to say kill them.
Of course, the “elimination” of terrorists is not as simple as just “killing” all of them. New terrorists are born and created every day.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 03:34 PMIt is absolutly absurd to say “We created Osama”, How on earth can anyone say that we are responsible for his actions? Because that is exactly what that means wether you want to believe it or not. Are the Jews responsible for Hitler?!?! We give weapons to others in order to fight wars, are they excused from running airplanes into our buildings? Feeling not safe is not the cause of our own Govt. NEWSFLASH: THE TERRORISTS ATTACTED US! There is waaay too much misplaced blame! These people are trying to kill us, that means you too, why are we trying to coddle them and tell them it’s our fault you want to kill us?!? This is insanity!!!
Posted by: Kevin at July 22, 2005 03:39 PMNEWSFLASH: THE TERRORISTS ATTACTED US! There is waaay too much misplaced blame! These people are trying to kill us, that means you too, why are we trying to coddle them and tell them it’s our fault you want to kill us?!? This is insanity!!!
It doesn’t excuse their actions, and it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be dealt with.
However…in light of viewing how the ACTIONS of the government can create situations that make civilians more likely to join with these groups and raise arms against the U.S….would you not hope that in the future those ACTIONS of your government are done in YOUR (an American citizen’s) best interests?
You can’t just say kill them all, and expect that to work. Every terrorist killed has a relative or friend who may want to avenge their death or be attracted to their cause.
You need to stop people from reaching the point where blowing themselves up seems like a good idea. The fear of death is obviously not a good deterent.
Posted by: monkeywerks at July 22, 2005 03:47 PMI change my vote to sassyliberal. Or can we send both?
Posted by: Jay at July 22, 2005 03:52 PMJay,
I am in full support of your suggestion to send Aldous as our spokesperson.
mattLaw,
I don’t write or advocate it if I don’t believe it, scary or not.
I am literally sick of the Liberal point of view continually expressed here that :
> we should not detain the GITMO prisoners because they are not guilty
> prisoners of war/terrorists should not be agressively abused/tortured
> an ACLU representative should be assigned to every enemy/terrorist
> the war is completely wrong, we should not kill innocent people
> it is easy to tell the innocent bystanders from the terrorists (I guess those are the ones pulling the bomb detanator while we are handing them a candy bar)
> It’s a Republican war so only Republicans should have to fight
> all the illegal aliens and/or non-US citizens in this country deserve to be treated as if they were citizens, it is our responsibility to take care of them
I could go on forever but I am sure you get the idea.
You win a war when you kill more of their guys than they kill of you. BTW I happen to be one of those who support President Bush 100%. Not because he is always right or I think he is. He is wrong lots of times. I support him because HE IS THE PRESIDENT.
The Democrats/Liberals complain that we are not protecting our borders properly. Maybe not since at last count there are 13 million illegal aliens in the US. (I doubt they all got here since Bush took office).
I also believe that the terrorists are already here. Living and working in your neighborhood, riding the trains, flying, being doctors, educators, working in laboratories, food processing plants, etc. There is a good chance that they did not arrive in London just prior to the bombings in the subway and bus.
Posted by: steve smith at July 22, 2005 04:54 PMA little hostile there, Steve…but let me address what you’ve said:
mattLaw, I don’t write or advocate it if I don’t believe it, scary or not. I am literally sick of the Liberal point of view continually expressed here that :> we should not detain the GITMO prisoners because they are not guilty
So you don’t believe any of them are not guilty, or you believe that we should detain innocent people?
> prisoners of war/terrorists should not be agressively abused/tortured
You believe that we should “aggressively abuse” and “torture” prisoners of war? Not only is that contrary to U.S. law, it’s forbidden by international law and several international treaties that the U.S. is a party to. “Aggressive abuse” and “torture” of prisoners is not immoral to you? Do you have no concern for our OWN troops who become prisoners?
> an ACLU representative should be assigned to every enemy/terrorist
I’ve never heard such a thing suggested, though I’ve found that generalization runs rampant on this board and I don’t expect that you’ll substantiate it.
> the war is completely wrong, we should not kill innocent people
So you believe that we SHOULD “kill innocent people?” To be sure, killing innocent people is usually unavoidable in war…but surely it should be avoided, no?
As for the war itself. You may completely support it, but many Americans now feel it was not worth it. None of the administration’s justifications for war have panned out. The war is costing a lot of money, and results have been minimal. Studies out of Saudi Arabia and Israel show that the war itself is militarizing hundreds of men who were not involved in terrorism before.
> it is easy to tell the innocent bystanders from the terrorists (I guess those are the ones pulling the bomb detanator while we are handing them a candy bar)
I agree with you, it is likely not easy to tell the difference.
> It’s a Republican war so only Republicans should have to fight
That’s an ignorant opinion. Our military is volunteer, anyway. Still, to maintain the trust of our troops we should not place them in danger unless absolutely necessary.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 05:17 PMYou’re way faster than me mattLaw, but here’s my response to Steve anyway:
Please point out where the Liberals have stated:
we should not detain the GITMO prisoners because THEY ARE NOT GUILTY
I believe what has been said is that we should not hold prisoners indefinitely without making some effort to prove their guilt or innocence.
prisoners of war/terrorists should not be agressively (sic) abused/tortured
We haven’t established yet just what the people held are: prisoners of war or terrorists are 2 suggestions.
an ACLU representative should be assigned to every enemy/terrorist
Where exactly was this said and by whom?
the war is completely wrong, we should not kill innocent people
This is two completely separate items: 1. The way the war was presented to the American people was a lie. 2. I completely agree, we should not kill innocent people.
it is easy to tell the innocent bystanders from the terrorists (I guess those are the ones pulling the bomb detanator (sic) while we are handing them a candy bar)
Again, who said this and where and when?
It’s a Republican war so only Republicans should have to fight
This is 1 person’s opinion, we all know who, it’s not all liberals.
all the illegal aliens and/or non-US citizens in this country deserve to be treated as if they were citizens, it is our responsibility to take care of them
Once again, two separate items: 1. illegal aliens; 2. non-US citizens in this country.
I could go on forever but I am sure you get the idea. No response needed, it speaks for itself.
I also believe that the terrorists are already here. Living and working in your neighborhood, riding the trains, flying, being doctors, educators, working in laboratories, food processing plants, etc. There is a good chance that they did not arrive in London just prior to the bombings in the subway and bus.
I agree with the last statement 100%.
Monica,
Nowhere else do child molesters have a protected status when they are released from prison so that families with kids have to worry they may move into the neighborhood.
Where have you been living? Every state in the union has a Meagens law that requires sex offenders to register with the local police when ever they move ANYWHERE. AAnd the police are required to notify their neighbors that a sex offender is living in their neighborhood and give them the names and address of the offender.
To bad they don’t do that with ALL criminals.
mattLaw and Jackie,
To begin with, my bullet points are not exact quotations from contributors although they do reflect the sentiments that are used, generally by Democrats/Liberals in various thread topics. All can be found in the archives.
I will respond to your counterpoints :
[1] I believe that the GITMO detainees are POW’s and can be detained for as long as we deem necessary.
[2] POW’s should be agressively interrogated. The “torture” implication comes from those who believe that “agressive” means “torture”. My own personal belief is that we should use whatever means necessary to gain information that will shorten the war and save American lives. This to me is not immoral.
[3] The ACLU reference is an overstatement. It seems that every time there is a discussion regarding treatment of prisoners or those who provide them shelter the Liberals invoke this ACLU issue.
[4] I believe that the war was justified. Killing innocent people is a byproduct of war. We have no idea of knowing who is innocent and who isn’t. They sell bananas during the day and strap on backbacks with bombs at night. Were the non-military people who were beheaded innocent? Are the people standing around a soldier who is handing out candy bars and then blown to bits innocent?
[5] “It’s a Republican war so only Republicans should fight it” is a direct quote repeated well over 100 times by Aldous. It is literally in almost every post he submits.
When you refer to it as an ignorant opinion please include him in your future responses. BTW I share your opinion on that issue and I have told him 100 times.
[6] Illegal aliens-Non-citizens
I believe that all illegal aliens should be deported immediately. I don’t care how or where. Non-citizens should be given a reasonable amount of time to decide on citizenship. They should learn the language immediately. Those opting not to become citizens should be deported.
mattLaw and Jackie,To begin with, my bullet points are not exact quotations from contributors although they do reflect the sentiments that are used, generally by Democrats/Liberals in various thread topics. All can be found in the archives.
They are certainly not all sentiments of “liberals generally” that I’m familiar with.
[1] I believe that the GITMO detainees are POW’s and can be detained for as long as we deem necessary.
Do the international laws of war that we’ve agreed to allow for the indefinite holding of “POWs?” I thought the government was specifically trying to call them something OTHER than POWs for this reason…
[2] POW’s should be agressively interrogated. The “torture” implication comes from those who believe that “agressive” means “torture”. My own personal belief is that we should use whatever means necessary to gain information that will shorten the war and save American lives. This to me is not immoral.
So do you believe prisoners should be tortured (as in, tortured) in order to procure information…in violation of international law and U.S. law?
[3] The ACLU reference is an overstatement. It seems that every time there is a discussion regarding treatment of prisoners or those who provide them shelter the Liberals invoke this ACLU issue.
The ACLU tends to look out for the rights of the unpopular. Many hate them for it–I think it’s commendable.
[4] I believe that the war was justified. Killing innocent people is a byproduct of war. We have no idea of knowing who is innocent and who isn’t. They sell bananas during the day and strap on backbacks with bombs at night. Were the non-military people who were beheaded innocent? Are the people standing around a soldier who is handing out candy bars and then blown to bits innocent?
First of all, you stated that the “war was justified” but offer no reasons why you believe this to be the case. Do you believe the reasons given to the public by the administration were straightforward? What of the declining support for the war, and the growing number of Americans who don’t think it was worth it?
It is not so impossible to tell innocent from enemy that one should suggest that the U.S. can simply kill discriminately. I don’t know which reason you subscribe to as the ‘reason’ we’re in Iraq, but one suggested by the Bush Administration is that we’re “liberating” the Iraqi people. Such a stance would suggest that we take the utmost care in protecting innocent civilians, no?
[5] “It’s a Republican war so only Republicans should fight it” is a direct quote repeated well over 100 times by Aldous. It is literally in almost every post he submits. When you refer to it as an ignorant opinion please include him in your future responses. BTW I share your opinion on that issue and I have told him 100 times.
Perhaps inject less generalization into your own posts and others will follow suit. I always strive to avoid generalizing the arguments of “liberals,” “conservatives,” “democrats,” or “republicans”…especially in an attacking tone.
[6] Illegal aliens-Non-citizens I believe that all illegal aliens should be deported immediately. I don’t care how or where. Non-citizens should be given a reasonable amount of time to decide on citizenship. They should learn the language immediately. Those opting not to become citizens should be deported.
I agree that we should have more secure borders, but the likelihood of every illegal alien being rounded up and deported is slim. Too many depend on them for labor.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 07:20 PMI think the argument is a Red Herring. Some privacy issues will come about from legitimate counterterrorism legislation, but in the big picture, counterterrorism isn’t about what’s invasive, it’s about what’s effective. It’s not privacy vs. counterterrorism, it’s effective counterterrorism against ineffective, within the context of a country that wants to remain the good old free U.S. of A. Maybe we trade off a few freedoms, but maybe the better idea is to get creative and also take care of those things that we don’t need to be invasive to accomplish. Cross-agency Aligned terrorist watchlists, better HUMINT overseas, and better security around points of vulnerability like chemical plants are a few examples.
So lets get out of the paralyzing dilemma and start getting things done.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2005 09:01 PMMonica~
I think many people have misunderstood your comment of “protected status”!
I think that what you are referring to(although I don’t want to put words in your mouth)is that once these animals are released the burden is then put on innocent people to protect themselves and their children. Don’t we have enuff worries w/ those that have not been caught yet, to then have to be even more vigilant of those that we know have a problem?(Besides most violent sex offenders are repeat offenders as we see time and time again on the news…the newest is that darling little Shasta that is now forever changed for life)!
To all of you spouting about the laws that are in place~
These laws are rediculous to any parent!
1st off they fail time and time again.(Usually because they are so vague)
Here are my solutions:
1. I am an innocent citizen trying to live my life….I should not have to take time away from my child searching the sex offender site to make sure one has not snuck into my neighborhood in the last week! (My sister recently found one in her neighborhood and was not informed prior)! The info on the website was so vague she can’t make heads or tails of it, was he a violent sex offender or was this a case of consentual minor sex such as a 20yr old sleeping w/ a 17yr old? She will never know because the police can’t “release that type of info”!!!!!!!
2. Each violent sex offender should have to personally go door to door(w/ a police escort) and introduce themselves as the pervert who MAY move into the neighborhood! I don’t want a name I want to know exactly what this monster looks like and I want my children to know also! Then after this measure has been taken, the members of that community should be able to vote on whether or not said person gets to move in!
3.After all this has been done, a sign w/ a universal symbol should be placed in their yard and a program like “DARE” should be brought to schools educating children on this! Some may yell that after all these measures no one would let them move in…….you are absolutely correct and what protecting “INNOCENT” people is all about! I guess they can choose to go back to prison w/ three square meals or find a remote location where children will not accidentally wander into their yard!
My point is that children are allowed to leave their neighborhoods and should be! So how am I suppose to know who is in their friends neighborhoods? (See how the sign thing works out)!! Also…penalty for removal of the sign is a one way ticket back to jail w/ no parole or release permitted! If someone else removes their sign they better be on speed dial getting the cops out w/ a new one!
My job as a parent is stressful enuff…let them(the violent sex offenders) carry the burden of their actions!
Children are overwhelmingly molested by someone they know, or a family member.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 23, 2005 03:37 PMNow that it has been announced that the “terrorist” that was shot and killed in London was innocent, I wonder how the right will spin this. It seems that the only crime that the gentleman was guilty of, was running from the police.
Of course this never happens in America.
Rocky
The right doesn’t have to spin this one. It was a mistake made by the police in London. UK is a democracy with the rule of law. They will investigate and gather the facts. I expect that the London police will learn from the incident.
You just can’t blame Bush and conservatives for all the bad things … unless you want to give them credit for all the good things.
It was especially encouraging to see the British Police chase a suspect “in a heavy coat” into the subway this morning knock him off his feet and proceed to shoot him to death in front of the viewing public.
One less trial, no cost of incarceration, no chance for him to become a shining example for others to follow. Way to go Brits.
Maybe you could send a few guys over here and show us how you conduct a search for these terrorists.
Posted by: steve smith at July 22, 2005 12:37 PM
Only trouble with that steve, is that the Metropolitan Police have said tonight that the man who was executed in the Underground, was not linked to the attempted bombings on Thurs. If fact, this guy was being followed from a house that was under surveillance. They had hoped that he would lead them to others. When he went into the Underground, they panicked, and gave excited chase. The guy ran, for whatever reason. He was then executed. The police made a judgement call, but they got it wrong.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 23, 2005 05:45 PMYou win a war when you kill more of their guys than they kill of you.
Posted by: steve smith at July 22, 2005 04:54 PM
Oh yeah stevie?
So what happened in Vietnam?
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 23, 2005 05:57 PMJack,
“You just can’t blame Bush and conservatives for all the bad things”
The remark about the right had more to do with what had been writen here on the blog rather than anything having to do with Bush.
Also, policemen, in the heat of the moment, sometimes have a tendency to come unglued, and as a result shit sometimes happens.
Before you all tell me what a dangerous job police work is, I know that. I also realize that policemen are human with human faults.
These are not supermen.
Traci-
Thanks! A lot of people read me the riot act here. All I want is a criminal justice system that makes our lives easier as lawful citizens. THe police are supposed to “protect and serve” us not the criminals. I guess that’s a concept hard for some to grasp.
-Monica
Posted by: Monica at July 25, 2005 12:42 PMPaul in Euroland,
OOPS, on the Brits for executing the wrong guy. Maybe at least it will stop people from running in the subway.
Posted by: steve smith at July 25, 2005 12:58 PMSteve Smith,
It was not the ACLU that investigated GITMO and found evidence of abuse. It was the FBI. It was not the ACLU who took photos of abuse at Abu Graib. It was the soldiers themselves.
A POW must be captured in the war zone, not outside a Mosque in the U.S. to be considered a POW.
The war on terror must be faught with military force but strategically, not faking intelligence, not under-planning,not attacking a country based on a perceived shared ideology. Our focus should be Afghanistan. We would be going after the man who masterminded the attack. We could spend the money we spend to illegally occupy Iraq on Homeland Security.
The bush administration logic is: If a person masterminds an attack on the U.S. We should go after those who share his ideology and as an after-thought go after the man responsible.
Nobody is that stupid.
Why do you think 1/2 the country thinks he went into Iraq for oil and KBR profits.
Because nobody believes the members of the “Axis of Evil”(Cheney,Bush and Rumsfeld) are that stupid.
Good afternoon Monica,
It has always seemed strange that other countries are all over their terrorists (Israel, Great Britain,Australia,and on, and on, and on. Yet the United States still can’t find Bin Laden.
Posted by: Nwwghiaftc at July 26, 2005 01:23 PM
