Republicans Trade Values for Votes
The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.
Republicans can call it whatever they want. All that does is make them liars, in addition to being traitors to this country. Their message is clear, and childishly black and white: if you’re not willing to abandon this country’s values in order to hunt terrorists, you’re coddling terrorists. If you’re not willing to spit on the Constitution, you’re coddling terrorists.
“To always have reasons why you just can’t vote ‘yes,’ I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them,” Boehner said.
All power must be vested in the executive branch. Or you’re coddling terrorists.
Just vote “yes.” Or you’re coddling terrorists.
Give the President whatever he asks for. Or you’re coddling terrorists.
First, it is ridiculous to call opposition of this law “coddling terrorists.” By the same logic, Republicans are coddling terrorists themselves because they aren’t advocating more power be surrendered to the executive branch. Second, while actually coddling terrorists would be a horrible thing, I can think of something worse: screwing this country for political gain.
John Boehner and his ilk are traitors to this country. They’re exploiting the fear of the ignorant public, unable to rationalize or prioritize threats. They’re surrendering our freedom and our country’s principles — saying all who do not join them are “coddling” our enemies. They’re buying votes, with freedom as the currency, and fear as the motivator. They pose more of an existential threat to this country than terrorists ever have.
I’m just as pissed at Republicans… but for other reasons. Anyway, I think you must have missed page two of that article you quoted because it contained some important information:
Shockingly… normal. This is not the un-harnessed spying you portray it as. As for Democrats, the fact that they believe known terrorists brought from a military battle field should be afforded the same constitutional rights and civilian courts as any average Joe in America. 1) Freaks me out and 2) tells me that they have the same position they have always had… sit back don’t do anything let the bad things happen to us and then blame someone else. Never ever stick your head out unless it’s to fight for more handouts or to bash others ideas while having none of your own.
Both parties have an issue where they completely miss the boat. Actually, Democrats have two major issues… Terrorism and Immigration and Republicans just don’t get Immigration… I know why they don’t and thats what pisses me off. I also know why Democrats don’t get immigration and I’m not at all surprised by it.
It is constitutionally unharnessed. It is judicially unharnessed.
That freaks me out too.
It also freaks me out that the Bush Administration has decided that even American citizens detained as terrorism suspects shall be denied habeas corpus rights.
Surely there is a middle ground between giving constitutional rights to foreign fighters and denying constitutional rights to American citizens.
[...] Still avoiding blogging on politics, I’ll merely link instead. It’s Saturday after all. Mark nails the principles at play in the new law passed by the House to legalize wireless wiretaps without a warrant. Republicans can call it whatever they want. All that does is make them liars, in addition to being traitors to this country. Their message is clear, and childishly black and white: if you’re not willing to abandon this country’s values in order to hunt terrorists, you’re coddling terrorists. If you’re not willing to spit on the Constitution, you’re coddling terrorists. Share this Post:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
I could use some more info on the “it could be used against American citizens” thing… I’ll admit to not being 100% clear on that.
Nevertheless, if my neighbor is caught driving a fertilizer truck bomb into an elementary school … I don’t really care about his ‘constitutional rights’. Same goes for a neighbor of mine who grew up in SoCal and ended up in Pakistan fighting for the enemy… if he is caught… I think it’s safe to assume he has given up any rights he may have had in the past. (*none of these things happened to me, the last one is real though.)
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (Article One, section nine).
You’re right, there has to be middle ground. But in my mind… that middle ground should not be allowed to get very big. I’ll read up on this a bit more so I can form a better opinion.