BACK * RushOnline.com * Cartoon Index * Bumper Stickers * Visitor Index

According to the LA TIMES - the Federal Courts convict more people than the
Military Courts; even when our Military Courts judged the Nazis.

* * *

Terrorists Rights?

What civil right did the terrorists give to the innocent people they murdered on 9-11? The hand wringers worry about hurting the feelings of Osama while we still dig out form the terror attack.

Actually, I guess the terrorists did give our people in the twin towers a civil right. The right to remain silent.....forever !

Ken

* * *

Hey There folks,
Mr. Limbaugh lambasted folks for their negative views on the erosion of our civil rights by Mr. Ashcroft. He indicated that those who would be sent to a military tribunal would be non-citizens. He further indicated that this is ok in a time of war. Well, unless we have totally thrown out the constitution, only Congress can declare WAR, not the president.

As of today, 11-26-2001 those wimps have not done so. Therefore, there is no legal war. Lets have the Congress debate the facts and vote to see if we are going to declare war on a country and not on an individual. Did we declare war on Hitler and not the entire German people? Quit pussy-footing around. Either declare war or go home.

maurice

* * *

Soldier's Mom view of tribunal

I am the very proud mother of a dedicated, patriotic Army soldier. His answer to the 9/11 tragedy was to reenlist immediately. He is willing to protect our freedom - each and every one of us - with his life. If he were to find himself in any trouble, as an enlisted man he would find his justice in front of a military court, as would all military men and women. I never hear any outrage about that. No liberals are crying on the talk shows every night because they grieve for the civil rights of our military who they just know are being violated. I don't hear bleeding heart liberals crying about the injustice of the "Uniform Code of Military Justice".

They are, by the way, able to cry and moan because in this country we have the freedom to do this because of brave men and women who defend us every single day. I am appalled and ashamed that you would use these freedoms to complain that the people who are in this country illegally and/or here to harm and kill us are being afforded the same rights as our military. How would you have me justify that criminals, illegal aliens and terrorists are to have more rights than the very defenders of our liberties? You publicity hound moaners are not worth my son's spit.
Barbara

* * *

Greetings Rush, I would bet the networks ABC,NBC , CBS (see bs) are lining up to get the movie, "The Execution of Private Slovic" with "ULTRA-LIB MARTIN SHEEN. Probably this movie will Cancel All Prime time slots including Survivor, Millionaire Ect. THIS IS ONLY A PREDICTION and may just happen should Osamma Bin Laden Be Captured.

JIM

* * *

Military Trails

Re: Lawyers whining about Military trials for terrorists.

They don't give a damn about the accused rights, - that is smoke. Lawyers, first and formost, want to make money and glory out of issues. Anytime a lawyer is against somthing, you know that it's good thing. To a lawyer, Justice is only fair when they make money and glory.

To deal swift and efficient justice by military trial is great. The last thing lawyers want is swift and efficent law, - They don't make enought money that way, and their glory time is small.

* * *

Hi Rush.
Megadittos... A good question to ask the critics of a military tribunal used to mete out justice to terrorists is if they feel that terrorists have more rights than members of our military. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which all members of our military serve, uses the military tribunal as a jury in military court martials. I think if it is good enough for our military is certainly is good enough for foreign terrorists. Give em hell...

Ed

* * *

Americans Favor Military Courts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans overwhelmingly support some of the U.S. government's controversial anti-terrorism measures including military courts to try suspects and eavesdropping on prisoner-lawyer conversations, according to a poll released on Wednesday. The ABC News/Washington Post poll found 59 percent of those questioned favor military tribunals to try non-citizens charged with terrorism and 73 percent support the wiretapping of conversations between suspects held on terrorism charges and their lawyers.

The survey also found 78 percent of Americans would support military action against Iraq to force President Saddam Hussein from power. Political analysts regard Iraq as a possible next target in President Bush's war on terrorism after the current U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.

The telephone poll, conducted on Nov. 27, surveyed 759 adults and has a 3.5 percentage point margin of error.

The Bush administration's anti-terror measures after the Sept. 11 passenger jet assaults on the World Trade Center and Pentagon have come under fire from some lawmakers and civil libertarians who question whether Americans are ceding cherished freedoms.

Two weeks ago, Bush declared an "extraordinary emergency" that permits him to order military trials for suspected terrorists arrested in the United States or abroad. Defendants could be tried in secret and convicted on a two-thirds majority vote, both contrary to normal U.S. judicial procedure.

The government has also said it has jailed some 600 people since the attacks, many on immigration violations, and wants to interview about 5,000 people of Middle Eastern origin.

The survey found 79 percent supported efforts to interview young Middle Eastern men despite complaints the campaign amounted to unfair profiling on the basis of national origin. The Bush administration says the Sept. 11 hijackers, who killed about 3,900 people, were of Middle East origin.

Eighty-six percent said the government's detentions since Sept. 11 are justified.

The poll also found 91 percent favor the U.S. military action in Afghanistan -- launched in response to the plane attacks -- and Bush continues to enjoy strong support, with 89 percent approval of his job performance.

Eighty-one percent of those surveyed said they would support military action against other countries that assist or shelter terrorists.

Mona Losh

* * *

Military Courts

I wanted to comment about the stupid idea of granting Constitutional Rights to Bin-Dover Ladin and anyone else involved in foreign initiated terrorism.

Just when was is decided or assumed that people, who are NOT citizens or otherwise lawfully approved to be in our country, are entitled to OUR civil and Constitutional Rights? OUR Constitution should be for OUR citizens and those whom we legally grant temporary "legal" status in our country. Not only did they not earn them, or were lucky enough to be born with those rights as a citizen, but at no time were they lawfully entitled to the same privileges our citizens have.

Otherwise, I believe that all others are only entitled to basic human rights but the advantages of OUR system of government and law should NOT be granted to those who are our enemies.
I just don't get some people's thinking.

I am all for military tribunals. Let's get it on....if anyone is still alive to be brought before one. Thanks for all you do in the continued fight to shine the light of truth on the BS in much of today's main stream media and news.

Happy Holidays to you and your wife,
Dan
Manhattan, KS

* * *

Is it right for tax payers not only to fund the war against the terrorists (which we should to defend ourselves and go after them and take them out), but also for tax payers to have to pay while these terrorists receive the same legal rights of our citizens? I don't think so. What a slap in the face to the victim's families!!!!! Ted Kennedy needs to remember that taxpayers pay his salary and we want justice swift and sure.

* * *

The argument presented is: The conviction rate of WWII military tribunals was 85 %.The conviction rate of Federal Courts is nearly 100 %.(Implied) Therefore, a military tribunal is not such a bad legal process.

The argument lacks validity - the transition to the conclusion is weak. The "crimes" litigated in the two courts are different. The "time period" covered by the comparison is different.
The "quality of representation" is different.

Sherlock Holmes

* * *

Lord Limbaugh:

Am I the only one that remembers Bill Clinton's attempt to set aside the 4th Amendment in 1993? I distinctly remember reading
in the Arizona Republic that Slick attempted to initiate warrantless searches for weapons of Project housing in Washington, D.C. shortly
after he came into office.

At the time I was greatly disturbed at the lack of outrage by the national media, and I first began to perceive Slick as a very dangerous president.

Nor do I remember a single democrat challenging his attempt to subvert the Constitution. This can only mean that Democratic Party whining re Military Tribunals to try terrorists does not reflect a real concern for civil liberties, but is a blatant attempt to attack the Bush Administration. Another example of the hypocrisy that has come to characterize the Democratic Party over the last 30 years.

I thank God for the foresight of the Founding Fathers who built a system of checks and balances into the Constitution. Slick's attempt to subvert the 4th Amendment in 1993 was blocked by a Federal Judge.

David W.

* * *

1. Since when did our constitution protect non-US citizens? It is my undetstanding it does not. So, Why are these liberal idiots questioning that these terrorists be tried by military tribunal?

Lonetree Watching

* * *

We worry about our latest defector and enemy aid. When are we going to settle scores with an even better known enemy and terrorist, that caused even more suffering and death to American Soldiers in a battle area.It is time to compare the life and styles of John Walker of California to JANE FONDA of the same left coast mindset, just a different era. Can I expect John to be in a future film from the socialist area of that state? Perhaps starring in a film called "IN HOLLOWED MOUNTAINS" instead of " On Golden Pond". Perhaps his father (a former Justice Attorney) could play a cameo part. Still bitter about the treatment of returning Veterans of foreign wars I thank you for your concern and thoughtful remarks about current affairs.

GOD BLESS AMERICA and all her Heroes
Chuck U.P. Michigan

* * *

I have just finished listening to Sen. Fibberman( I meant to say Sen. Liebermen) complaining about the fact that the Justice Dept. is going to try the Moroccan born terrorist in a Federal Court. He said that he was afraid that this was taking a great risk of losing the case on a technicality and we should try him in a Military Tribunal. If memory serves me right, he and other Democrats were crying that there was no need to set up Military tribunals, that the normal Court system was fine. Of course you and I know what's happening here. With the Presidents high approval rating, they don't dare attack him, so they're going after Attorney General Ashcroft. I'm sure Sen. I'm disappointed Daschle will be beating the same drum shortly.

Jim Coolidge
Covelo, Ca.

* * *

Military Tribunals

I believe that it's the only way to deal with these murderers they are not US Citizens and don't have the same protections afforded to them.Why should we let them use our court system against us.When they don't feel we have the right to live in peace due to their intolerance in regards to us.I sure wouldn't want to insult them by treating them like the Americans that they Hate. Let em be soccer Halftime Entertainment!!!
.
Respectfully Yours
Wesley Sr

* * *

A Big Yes for Military Tribunals

Lawyers that want to try Osama bin Ladin in our courts are opening the door for more and more cases as we fight this long war on terrorism. I feel they want to do this to pad their own pockets. They should be treated as war crimmals

bob from Grand Rapids, MI

* * *

Another shocking lawsuit from the ACLU!
Dear Mr. and Mrs. DiRocco,

An important ally of our freedom is under attack again - Attorney General John Ashcroft! The Department of Justice - the champion of our safety has actually been hit with a lawsuit by the ACLU and other organizations- an outrageous offense during this critical time.

Last year, the American Center joined friends like you in support of his Senate confirmation as Attorney General. The ACLU, People for the American Way, and others were outraged that a Christian and vigilant defender of the U.S. Constitution could be named as the head of the Department of Justice.

Now they're going after him again ... because he's defending our nation against terrorism! And we need your help. https://www.donation-net.net/threshold_np/e_trans.cfm?dn=1008&source=8&CFID=1891157&CFTOKEN=4079755

His opponents claim:
* that his department's new investigative powers were established too quickly without Congress' permission
* that the civil liberties of detained individuals - held in connection with Sept. 11's terrorist attacks - are being violated
* and that the Attorney General and the President are overstepping their constitutional boundaries.

I was shocked to hear Bill Goodman, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, say that the job of his organization is to protect the Constitution from its enemies.

And "its main enemies right now," he told the New York Times, "are the Justice Department and the White House." This statement is unbelievableconsidering the Attorney General and the President have done everything in their power to PROTECT OUR FREEDOM.

These outspoken organizations HAVE EVEN FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. This is outrageous and unthinkable while our nation is at war! We at the American Center support the Attorney General's actions against those who would harm you and your family as completely constitutional and in YOUR best interest.

The security of our country is at stake. The safety of your family hangs in the balance. The ACLU and other groups are out of line with this groundless action and we WILL MEET THIS CHALLENGE IN COURT!

* We will work closely with the Justice Department to defend against this lawsuit. * We will inform your representatives in Congress of the Attorney General's rights during wartime. * We are your voice in Washington and in the courts ... we will fight foryou.

But we need you to help us fight this lawsuit and send a strong message to Washington - that we support Attorney General John Ashcroft. We cannot do it without your financial support.https://www.donation-net.net/threshold_np/e_trans.cfm?dn=1008&source=8&CFID=1891157&CFTOKEN=4079755

I ask you to make a generous online donation today. We couldn't have planned for this costly campaign - to defend the Attorney General, anti-terrorism laws and the U.S. Constitution - and I need you to standwith me with gifts and prayers. The anti-faith forces will stop at nothing to destroy your religious freedoms and clear this country of all who have strong Christian values. They would even risk the safety of your family. We cannot let this lawsuit go unanswered. Please help us with your support. And we continue fighting scores of ongoing cases nationwide - from preserving your right to equal access, to standing up for life. Your secure online gift today will make a great impact in our work.

https://www.donation-net.net/threshold_np/e_trans.cfm?dn=1008&source=8&CFID=1891157&CFTOKEN=4079755

MORE ON PAGE 2