(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Who is more likely to destroy the essence of what the U.S. stands for?

People who hijack planes and destroy buildings, killing several thousand people in the process,

or

A President who refers to civil rights as "unreasonable obstacles?"

or

Both, if they are allowed to run roughshod throughout the world, unopposed by people of compassion and conscience?

Comments

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"Under current federal law, there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting terrorism, obstacles that don't exist when law enforcement officials are going after embezzlers or drug traffickers," Bush said..."

Yes, those unreasonable obstacles (i.e., civil rights) were long ago removed from prosecuting any drug related offense, due to media driven hysteria over the dangers of drugs utweighing the benefits of freedom. So why wouldn't he demand those freedoms be removed from any terror suspects?
And then, why not demand they be removed from any crime suspects? After all, violent criminals surely don't deserve rights... and then why should any criminal deserve rights? Surely the writers of the Constitution never foresaw such a dangerous world! They would happily have left out all that messy stuff like habeas corpus and cruel and unusual punishment if they knew it would lead to police officers standing by helpless to stop the overwhelming tide of drug addicts and terrorists that are taking over our country!