I heard on NPR about a debate going on regarding suspects being held for alleged affiliation with the 911 hijackings. NPR was discussing the "threat" of having these suspects come to trial in NYC and the "emotional harm" it would have on the citizens of NYC. It also had a brief discussion with Bloomberg stating that hosting "these trials not only put New Yorkers in grave danger, but also would cost the city a huge sum of money in extra security costs."NPR then cut to some brief sound clips of New Yorkers being stopped in the street and asked how they felt. ALL of the clips were of people suggesting that the military hold the trials in a secured location off-shore somewhere. Of course NOBODY expressed the dangers this kind of president will have on the future of Habeas Corpus as we know it!
Read this transcript from "Your World With Neil Cavuto," February 2, 2010 show:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584706,00.html
Pay attention to quotes like, "you are going to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed four years of a platform to spew hate. And, keep in mind, he beheaded Daniel Pearl and was the mastermind — and he has already acknowledged both — was the mastermind of resulting in killing almost 3,000 people on 9/11."
So much for innocent until proven guilty! And we should deny a civilian trial on the grounds that the defendant will "spew hate" and say things we might not like? In essence this bill directly attacks habeas corpus AND free speech!
Apparently, in defense of attacks against our "freedom," the government continually "suspends" those very liberties that make us "free."
Keeping in mind the information I posted in yesterday's entry, things are getting darker for Liberty as we know it here in The United States...
3 comments:
I read both of the articles, and I do agree with your point of view.
The second one reminds me of an article I read a few weeks back ( wish I could find it again, so I can send it in this email).
The author of the article opined that if The Sons of Liberty were to re-emerge in present times, with the EXACT same ideals and goals as they had in their original day and age, that they would be treated as terrorists. They would be under constant surveillance by many agencies and be attacked by the mainstream media. (Of course, they were considered a group of terror back then by the British as well.)
I guess if someone has opposing ideals and political views, they can be referred to as terrorists.
CAN and WILL! And under the precedents that cases like these are setting - that person will also be given a secret trial under a secret tribunal system in a secret location...
Department of Homeland Security considers returning veterans, gun owners, advocates of the Second Amendment and states’ rights to be potential enemies. The 500 to 1,000 “cyber warriors” funded by the sweeping Cybersecurity Enhancement Act will likely be turned against the patriot movement and not the CIA spawned fake terror organization al-Qaeda.
Post a Comment