Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Policies and practices that were perfectly acceptable just after 9/11, or when deployed by the Bush administration, are now decried as dangerous and reckless. The same prominent Republicans who once celebrated open civilian trials for Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber," now claim that open civilian trials endanger Americans (some Republicans have now even gone so far as to try to defund such trials). Republicans who once supported closing Guantanamo are now fighting to keep it open. And one GOP senator, who like all members of Congress must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, has voiced his concern that the Christmas bomber really needed to be "properly interrogated" instead of being allowed to ask for a lawyer.
This week Glenn Greenwald summarized how far the goal posts of normal have moved when he pointed out that "merely advocating what Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted as his policy—'to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against' terrorists—is now the exclusive province of civil liberties extremists." Upon being elected to the U. S. Senate last month, Scott Brown declared: "Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation—they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them." As Adam Serwer observed, "This is the new normal for Republicans: You can be denied rights not through due process of law but merely based on the nature of the crime you are suspected of committing. Brown's rhetorical framing, that jettisoning the legal system we've had for 200-plus years represents 'tradition' while granting suspected criminals the right to legal counsel represents liberalism gone mad is new, and I suspect we'll hear it again."
Policies and practices that were perfectly acceptable just after 9/11, or when deployed by the Bush administration, are now decried as dangerous and reckless. The same prominent Republicans who once celebrated open civilian trials for Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber," now claim that open civilian trials endanger Americans (some Republicans have now even gone so far as to try to defund such trials). Republicans who once supported closing Guantanamo are now fighting to keep it open. And one GOP senator, who like all members of Congress must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, has voiced his concern that the Christmas bomber really needed to be "properly interrogated" instead of being allowed to ask for a lawyer.
This week Glenn Greenwald summarized how far the goal posts of normal have moved when he pointed out that "merely advocating what Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted as his policy—'to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against' terrorists—is now the exclusive province of civil liberties extremists." Upon being elected to the U. S. Senate last month, Scott Brown declared: "Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation—they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them." As Adam Serwer observed, "This is the new normal for Republicans: You can be denied rights not through due process of law but merely based on the nature of the crime you are suspected of committing. Brown's rhetorical framing, that jettisoning the legal system we've had for 200-plus years represents 'tradition' while granting suspected criminals the right to legal counsel represents liberalism gone mad is new, and I suspect we'll hear it again."
I dont believe this is new at all.the legal system we had 200 years ago would have this man dead alraedy.unfortunatly it is the new legal system that is flawed.full of love for those who want to hurt us.liberalism gone mad good way to put it. the scary part is not the terrorists them selves. but people like dahlia lithwicked who would rether see the U.S.A. DESTROY then to go after those people who want america destroy. this is a coward,an apeaser.what lithwicked is blocking out of her mind is this people hate us ,no matter how nice we are to them,this people will kill us if given the chance
I dont believe this is new at all.the legal system we had 200 years ago would have this man dead alraedy.unfortunatly it is the new legal system that is flawed.full of love for those who want to hurt us.liberalism gone mad good way to put it. the scary part is not the terrorists them selves. but people like dahlia lithwicked who would rether see the U.S.A. DESTROY then to go after those people who want america destroy. this is a coward,an apeaser.what lithwicked is blocking out of her mind is this people hate us ,no matter how nice we are to them,this people will kill us if given the chance
The article´s premise is that currently, in its singleminded drive to get back into power, the right's rhetoric has become so adamant and has traveled SO far to the polar right that "'merely advocating what Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted as his policy—"to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against" terrorists—is now the exclusive province of civil liberties extremists.'
"You can be denied rights not through due process of law but merely based on the nature of the crime you are suspected of committing. Brown's rhetorical framing, that jettisoning the legal system we've had for 200-plus years represents 'tradition' while granting suspected criminals the right to legal counsel represents liberalism gone mad, is new."
I dont believe this is new at all.the legal system we had 200 years ago would have this man dead alraedy.unfortunatly it is the new legal system that is flawed.full of love for those who want to hurt us.liberalism gone mad good way to put it. the scary part is not the terrorists them selves. but people like dahlia lithwicked who would rether see the U.S.A. DESTROY then to go after those people who want america destroy. this is a coward,an apeaser.what lithwicked is blocking out of her mind is this people hate us ,no matter how nice we are to them,this people will kill us if given the chance
Well all I know is constitutional interrogation methods used by "liberals" have led to cooperation and the arrests of other serious threats. For all we know it diverted a serious attack. National security was supposed to be the GOP's bread and butter but they basically just got pimp slapped over the Xmas bomber's sucessful interrogation.
I've been suspected of heinous crimes against humanity, right after 9-11.
I'm still a prime suspect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
