Did We Mention "Clueless"?
I was pretty sure we did state just that in our previous post. But, lo and behold, we have another instance of the clueless media. Granted, this is an op-ed, but it still comes from an MSM source. That would be the Boston Globe, and after reading this, I no longer wonder how Kerry and Kennedy keep getting elected.
It prattles on for a few paragraphs about the history of "repression" during wartime, including the citation of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. The Globe goes on to state that he did so to quiet dissent. This is a historical misnomer. He was also facing riots in Maryland and those sympathetic with the Confederate states; he was the president trying to preserve the union. When his decision was overruled by the US Circuit Court (Ex Parte Merryman--1861), Lincoln refused to abide by their decision. I also notice the Golbe does not mention that Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus. They also bring up Wilson's moves during World War I to silence dissent, and FDR's infamous imprisonment of over 100,000 Japanese in the US.
All of this means nothing to them, for the most part, until you get to the juicy slam in the end.
The Civil War lasted four years, World War I was over in less than two for the United States, and the nation emerged victorious from World War II in three years and nine months. ''Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated," Bush said last month. The war on terrorism has already lasted longer than those three other wars, and, based on Bush's objectives, will probably continue for a decade or more. As this peculiar war grinds on, prospects for the erosion of liberty increase.
Pray tell, what liberties have been "eroded" thus far? We still have the ability to enter dissenting opinions against the government (First Amendment rights, TY very much), and as the media has shown, they are pulling out all the stops on that front. Our enemies that have been captured are being given more than what is legally allowed, under the definition os the law (The US Constitution), and I am sure that more of those on the Left will demand even more be granted to these people. I see no "erosion" of liberties. The Left may see something, in some conspiritorial fashion, but without proof, their arguments will remain on the moonbat fringe.
Already a concentration camp has been established at Guantanamo Bay, and prisoners there are being denied their rights as human beings. And while Bush has been careful not to single out Muslims for persecution, immigrants are feeling the pressure of new restrictions. Bush, through the Patriot Act and executive fiat, is expanding the search powers of the federal government.
A concentration camp? Are they serious? Have these people forgotten the lessons of history, or have they latched onto the Ahmadinejad school of denial. When I hear of "concentration camps," I picture those used by the Nazis during World War II, or post-war Russia as Stalin herded hundreds of thousands of dissidents into gulags. The same holds true for North Korea and China today. And those camps had more to do with human rights abuses than Gitmo ever could. I did not know that religiously-approved meals, free Korans and prayer rugs, and an intercom system set up to remind these people when to pray was considered denying these people "their rights as human beings." And as for the government's search powers the president is entitled, and bound by oath and law, to protect this nation. If that means that we are searching foreign agent's domiciles to prevent them from doing harm to our nation, then so be it. The Constitution is explicit in what constitutes a citizen, and the rights they are granted; such things have been interpreted by the courts, and upheld as precedent.
In the past, the courts and the Congress have not been much of a check on executive powers in wartime. The Supreme Court in the Milligan case did declare military courts illegal in states where civilian justice was fully operational, but that ruling came almost two years after the Civil War ended.
It's encouraging, however, that in the current war, courts have insisted on judicial review for people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and that Congress is raising questions about the president's decision to collect information, without a warrant, about Americans' phone calls to people overseas. On this day it is worth remembering a lesson repeated in American history: Repression by war presidents has not contributed to victory.
It is interesting to note that though the Globe picks a case reviewing the Civil War, they, like the NY Times (as pointed out effectively by John Hinderacker) fail to look at past precedents set by the courts regarding the president's powers to surveil foreign agents in the United States that have been deemed to be a threat to the security of the nation. (There is no need for me to review these cases again; Mr. Hinderacker's post stands as is, and we have addressed this recently.)
And it should not be encouraging in the least that Congress is sticking it's nose into something where it does not belong. The powers of war are solely invested in the president. Were something deemed illegal by the courts, they can overrule him; and if it were truly illegal, Congress would have already started impeachment proceedings. As nothing the president has done thus far can be deemed "illegal," Congress' checks on the presidency are invalid. They do not have the ability to question what is clearly not in their purview. The vested interest of the war resides in the presidency. Congress may institute the ultimate check against the administration, and simply cut the funding for the war. However, the politicos know that that is virtual political suicide.
I wish that the media would learn that foolish editorials like this only adds to the suicide that they are perpetuating on themselves.
Bunny ;)
I was pretty sure we did state just that in our previous post. But, lo and behold, we have another instance of the clueless media. Granted, this is an op-ed, but it still comes from an MSM source. That would be the Boston Globe, and after reading this, I no longer wonder how Kerry and Kennedy keep getting elected.
It prattles on for a few paragraphs about the history of "repression" during wartime, including the citation of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. The Globe goes on to state that he did so to quiet dissent. This is a historical misnomer. He was also facing riots in Maryland and those sympathetic with the Confederate states; he was the president trying to preserve the union. When his decision was overruled by the US Circuit Court (Ex Parte Merryman--1861), Lincoln refused to abide by their decision. I also notice the Golbe does not mention that Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus. They also bring up Wilson's moves during World War I to silence dissent, and FDR's infamous imprisonment of over 100,000 Japanese in the US.
All of this means nothing to them, for the most part, until you get to the juicy slam in the end.
The Civil War lasted four years, World War I was over in less than two for the United States, and the nation emerged victorious from World War II in three years and nine months. ''Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated," Bush said last month. The war on terrorism has already lasted longer than those three other wars, and, based on Bush's objectives, will probably continue for a decade or more. As this peculiar war grinds on, prospects for the erosion of liberty increase.
Pray tell, what liberties have been "eroded" thus far? We still have the ability to enter dissenting opinions against the government (First Amendment rights, TY very much), and as the media has shown, they are pulling out all the stops on that front. Our enemies that have been captured are being given more than what is legally allowed, under the definition os the law (The US Constitution), and I am sure that more of those on the Left will demand even more be granted to these people. I see no "erosion" of liberties. The Left may see something, in some conspiritorial fashion, but without proof, their arguments will remain on the moonbat fringe.
Already a concentration camp has been established at Guantanamo Bay, and prisoners there are being denied their rights as human beings. And while Bush has been careful not to single out Muslims for persecution, immigrants are feeling the pressure of new restrictions. Bush, through the Patriot Act and executive fiat, is expanding the search powers of the federal government.
A concentration camp? Are they serious? Have these people forgotten the lessons of history, or have they latched onto the Ahmadinejad school of denial. When I hear of "concentration camps," I picture those used by the Nazis during World War II, or post-war Russia as Stalin herded hundreds of thousands of dissidents into gulags. The same holds true for North Korea and China today. And those camps had more to do with human rights abuses than Gitmo ever could. I did not know that religiously-approved meals, free Korans and prayer rugs, and an intercom system set up to remind these people when to pray was considered denying these people "their rights as human beings." And as for the government's search powers the president is entitled, and bound by oath and law, to protect this nation. If that means that we are searching foreign agent's domiciles to prevent them from doing harm to our nation, then so be it. The Constitution is explicit in what constitutes a citizen, and the rights they are granted; such things have been interpreted by the courts, and upheld as precedent.
In the past, the courts and the Congress have not been much of a check on executive powers in wartime. The Supreme Court in the Milligan case did declare military courts illegal in states where civilian justice was fully operational, but that ruling came almost two years after the Civil War ended.
It's encouraging, however, that in the current war, courts have insisted on judicial review for people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and that Congress is raising questions about the president's decision to collect information, without a warrant, about Americans' phone calls to people overseas. On this day it is worth remembering a lesson repeated in American history: Repression by war presidents has not contributed to victory.
It is interesting to note that though the Globe picks a case reviewing the Civil War, they, like the NY Times (as pointed out effectively by John Hinderacker) fail to look at past precedents set by the courts regarding the president's powers to surveil foreign agents in the United States that have been deemed to be a threat to the security of the nation. (There is no need for me to review these cases again; Mr. Hinderacker's post stands as is, and we have addressed this recently.)
And it should not be encouraging in the least that Congress is sticking it's nose into something where it does not belong. The powers of war are solely invested in the president. Were something deemed illegal by the courts, they can overrule him; and if it were truly illegal, Congress would have already started impeachment proceedings. As nothing the president has done thus far can be deemed "illegal," Congress' checks on the presidency are invalid. They do not have the ability to question what is clearly not in their purview. The vested interest of the war resides in the presidency. Congress may institute the ultimate check against the administration, and simply cut the funding for the war. However, the politicos know that that is virtual political suicide.
I wish that the media would learn that foolish editorials like this only adds to the suicide that they are perpetuating on themselves.
Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home