How would FDR handle Muslim bombers?

[Danno 1,228]

SUPREME COURT TO FACE MECCA

May 12, 2010

Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less "amateurish" and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.

Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)

That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.

Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.

Either the five liberal justices demanding constitutional rights for terrorists are out of their minds, or the religious worship of President Franklin D. Roosevelt has got to stop. According to liberal logic in the war on terrorism, FDR was a bloodthirsty war criminal.

When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.

Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen -- who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI -- got 30 years.

The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.

Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).

Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.

How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?

But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.

So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")

We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief's constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don't have the technology. (The New York Times hasn't gotten around to printing it.)

The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi's district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony "constitutional rights" liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.

President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they're Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.

(Recall that Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)

Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don't have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.

(Note: This is only a partial list.)

The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.

http://www.anncoulter.com

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Japanese internment camps also occurred under FDR's watch.

[The_Dude 1,142]

lol, posting from ann coulter's website Danno?

[peejay 327]

Like a lot of things going on in modern America today, it is more about a lack of intestinal fortitude than a constitutional matter. The mentality of the WWII/Great Depression generation of my parents that grew up during grittier times has given way to their kids and grandkids that have never known anything but a relatively easy life comparitively. They have grown soft and are afraid to defend their own interests without going off on a guilt trip.

Eisenhower had no problems deporting millions of illegal aliens in the 1950's. Similarly FDR (considered a flaming liberal back then) had no qualms about doing what had to be done and never looking back. America needs to grow some balls again or we will perish.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

[Fandango 1,440]

lol, posting from ann coulter's website Danno?

So tell me why you disgree with the article.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Japanese internment camps also occurred under FDR's watch.

Yeah...

I'm also left wondering what parallels are supposed to be drawn between the present day and the WW2 era - which wasn't exactly a paragon of civil rights was it....

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Like a lot of things going on in modern America today, it is more about a lack of intestinal fortitude than a constitutional matter. The mentality of the WWII/Great Depression generation of my parents that grew up during grittier times has given way to their kids and grandkids that have never known anything but a relatively easy life comparitively. They have grown soft and are afraid to defend their own interests without going off on a guilt trip.

Eisenhower had no problems deporting millions of illegal aliens in the 1950's. Similarly FDR (considered a flaming liberal back then) had no qualms about doing what had to be done and never looking back. America needs to grow some balls again or we will perish.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

Asking America today to grow some balls? That's almost asking the impossible.

I personally blame the Women's movement for castrating the male mentality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well when you want to make illegal entry an offense punishable by death, anything less than having interrogators crack out the rack, thumbscrews and red hot pokers is probably too "soft".

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well when you want to make illegal entry an offense punishable by death, anything less than having interrogators crack out the rack, thumbscrews and red hot pokers is probably too "soft".

I said repeat offenders punishable by death.

Though I also have no problem with picking people off who are trying to jump the fence either.

If you're already in here though, we'll take record of you, print you, etc. then send you back over. - Do it again... won't be so 'nice' about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I said repeat offenders punishable by death.

Though I also have no problem with picking people off who are trying to jump the fence either.

If you're already in here though, we'll take record of you, print you, etc. then send you back over. - Do it again... won't be so 'nice' about it.

Strangely... that doesn't make a lot of difference to the impression that opinion creates.

[Peikko 1,575]

The first sentence sums her idiocy up. Whatever laws are in place in the US make no difference to whether or not a terrorist will attempt a terrorist attack period. To imagine that the prospect of summary execution putting off a terrorist is laughable, it's so naive.

The US therefore have to decide whether they want this country to be a place with laws that make for fair and just treatment for all, including suspects in heinous crimes (thus precluding the possibility of routinely executing innocent people) or whether they want to radically change the US into a society that summarily dismisses rights from its own citizens in order to satisfy this lust for action, however bizarre, barbaric and plain useless this action might be. Personally, I'm in favour of the former.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Nagishkaw 510]

Nearly a third of the St. Louis's passengers died in the Holocaust.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The first sentence sums her idiocy up. Whatever laws are in place in the US make no difference to whether or not a terrorist will attempt a terrorist attack period. To imagine that the prospect of summary execution putting off a terrorist is laughable, it's so naive.

The US therefore have to decide whether they want this country to be a place with laws that make for fair and just treatment for all, including suspects in heinous crimes (thus precluding the possibility of routinely executing innocent people) or whether they want to radically change the US into a society that summarily dismisses rights from its own citizens in order to satisfy this lust for action, however bizarre, barbaric and plain useless this action might be. Personally, I'm in favour of the former.

Terrorist sympathizer, eh?

[Peikko 1,575]

Terrorist sympathizer, eh?

No, a supporter of the judicial process as it stands. Anyone who responds to the fear of terrorist attacks by implementing terrorist strategies is a terrorist sympathizer - and that ain't me.

[Danno 1,228]

The first sentence sums her idiocy up. Whatever laws are in place in the US make no difference to whether or not a terrorist will attempt a terrorist attack period. To imagine that the prospect of summary execution putting off a terrorist is laughable, it's so naive.

The US therefore have to decide whether they want this country to be a place with laws that make for fair and just treatment for all, including suspects in heinous crimes (thus precluding the possibility of routinely executing innocent people) or whether they want to radically change the US into a society that summarily dismisses rights from its own citizens in order to satisfy this lust for action, however bizarre, barbaric and plain useless this action might be. Personally, I'm in favour of the former.

Sorry, MC....acts of war.. when we are at a time of war, .... tears up the civility card for many of us.