Those Who Help the Terrorists…
Love him or hate him, Bill O’Reilly is right on about this one.
Now there’s no question that worldwide terror exists because people help these savages. Some actively, some passively, but help is help.
Target number one, the USA is the ACLU, which is demanding that accused foreign terrorists be afforded Geneva Convention protections and trials in criminal court. The Geneva Convention is quite clear in stating that captured individuals wearing no uniforms and those who attack civilians are not entitled to Geneva protections. The ACLU doesn’t seem to care about that.
The Constitution makes no mention of any legal rights for foreigners captured overseas. Again, the ACLU doesn’t care. The ACLU is also demanding that more pictures of the abuse at Abu Ghraib be released. The Defense Department is fighting that. Everybody knows those pictures incite violence against Americans. So why should more of them be fed to the press? We already know what happened at Abu Ghraib. And people are going to prison because of it.
Clearly, more pictures of Abu Ghraib (search) help the terrorists, as do Geneva Convention protections and civilian lawyers. So there’s no question the ACLU and the judges who side with them are terror allies.
But what about a guy like “New York Times” columnist Bob Herbert? His thesis is that worldwide terrorism is being exacerbated by the Iraq War. And Herbert’s opinion is held by many people who are blaming the current wave of terror killings on President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.
Are Herbert and others helping the terrorists by misdirecting, in my opinion, the motive for terrorism? “Talking Points” will not condemn Herbert for that opinion. I think it’s wrong, but not intentionally aiding the killers.
However, you will not see Herbert and his ilk condemn the ACLU for inciting terror with this Abu Ghraib deal. And that is out of the park hypocritical. Any picture of accusation of an American abusing a Muslim is a terror recruiting tool. Hello, Newsweek, koran controversy.Read The Whole Thing
Thanks Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette
The Jawa Report is helping expose another dangerous organization, CAIR.
Beth also has an open letter to this terrorist loving organization. Why do we allow these organizations to even exist?
Rightwing Nuthouse hits the nail on the head about Islam and those who help terrrorists.
We can only hope for something similar to happen with Islam. When I hear people say that what Islam needs is a Martin Luther King, Jr. I have to disagree. They don’t need a King: They need a Martin Luther to nail 95 reasons to live to the door of a mosque.
Email This
Posted by Gribbit on July 26, 2005 2:07 pm
» Filed Under War On Terror
Trackback URL:
Comments
15 Responses to “Those Who Help the Terrorists…”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Ok, who is really defending terrorists?
The 2d Amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The ACLU says this amendment grants rights to the states to organize armed militias. The NRA (and the Bush Justice Dept.) says it grants rights to the individual to be free from government interference in bearing arms.
So tomorrow when the police discover some guy with a nuclear bomb in his suitcase, whose viewpoint do you want to prevail? Do we really want the NRA’s “you can’t touch him ‘cuz the 2d Amendment says so” philosophy to win?
Nobody – Your analogy is ludicrious.
And it’s just about as ridiculous and out of context as I’ve ever seen.
Why do these URL-less trolls come here and spew garbage?
What is it about the logic of us, as a team, that intimidates these fools so badly that they have to pose as anonymous bloggers and the usual trolls who change their aliases?
Illegals have no 2nd amendment, 1st amendment, 14th amendment or any amendment rights. Why should they have any? Citizens have as many rights as illegals? According to the looney left they do.
So let me get this right, according to “nobody” the NRA believes we have the right to have nuke suitcases? Please show me where they say this.
Obviously this liberal doesn’t understand that our right to bear arms is to protect ourselves.
Now I would like to ask what this has to do with the post which is speaking of the Geneva Conventions and not the second amendment.
You’ll get no response to that unless it’s totally ignorant and totally irrelevant. That’s “The Liberal Way.” As long as it makes no sense, has nothing to do with the topic at hand and aggravates everyone, due to lack of common sense, the Liberals are on-board.
That’s why they all comment with different aliases and they never type in URLs or email addresses.
Don’t hold your breath on an answer to those questions, Jay, unless you’re ready for “Ultimate Moonbatting.”
This guy must be another one of those lefty loonatics. I dont not know of any instance where the courts have allowed some criminal keep his weapons. The NRA has not said that criminals can keep arms. If someone had a suitcase bomb or other kind bomb the constitution would not support him or it. This one of those loonatics that just wants to throw _ _ _ _ into the game without thought before engaging his mouth.
It is my understanding that the Terrorists are not and never were a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
Where was Bin Laden’s direct or proxy seat at Geneva? They don’t even get the limited protections as spies and saboteurs.
They violate almost every act listed as a grave violation in the convention articles.
They are afforded very limited rights under international law and custom only.
How do you read the 2d Amendment to say, “Individuals have a right to guns, but not bombs”? I don’t see it.
I agree with the NRA (and others) that the 2d Amendment could be read to bar government from interfering with an individual’s right to bear arms. And I agree with the ACLU (and others) that the 2d Amendment could be read to bar the federal government from interfering with a state government’s right to have an armed militia. Both interpretations seem plausible to me.
But if you agree with the first interpretation, I don’t see how the text of the 2d Amendment permits us to distinguish between the right to bear pistols and the right to bear nuclear weapons. If the 2d Amendment protects the one, it would appear to protect the other.
But I’m open to hear how the language could be construed in some third way. Again, here’s the text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This sounds to me as if the States are encouraged to regulate their own militias, and that the people’s right to bear arms will not be regulated by the Feds. The most intrusive way I can construe this is that the States have the right to conscript anyone who owns a firearm in defense of the State. I’m no constitutional scholar, of course, but this seems to be the original intent. I could be way off.
As far as terrorism goes, the States should be using “a well regulated militia” (read as “National Guard”) to help in certain areas, like in the border States on both sides of the country. Terrorist sleeper cells are all citizens responsibility to be watchful for, but a “militia” is not needed, or particularly helpful, at this point.
Jay…
Love the new site and look!
Idiots are still as stupid as ever but the responses are great!
You do have to admire the libs,commies and socialists though. They have no base values, no common sense or a leg to stand on, but they keep flailing blindly away hoping they hit something in that dark world they live in.
Actually Christopher, the ACLU has basically no position on the 2nd Amendment. Their own website even says so. But they will say that they are not opposed to severe limitations to the ability for the general public to own guns.
The ACLU is an organization which claims that they defend the Bill of Rights, but they selectively choose which ones that they defend and which ones that they ignore. Like the 2nd Amendment and my favorite, the 10th Amendment.
Don’t you love it?
C.K.L.
“The most intrusive way I can construe this is that the States have the right to conscript anyone who owns a firearm in defense of the State. I’m no constitutional scholar, of course, but this seems to be the original intent. I could be way off.”
In the early years of this Country, Firearms were REQUIRED by law. Each man was required to own a WORKING rifle, appropriate ammunition, powder. They were inspected and if they were found lacking any of these, they were fined and in severe cases, imprisioned. They were REQUIRED to carry their arms to Church. Arms were required to protect the individual, their family, town, State and Country.
The 2nd Amendment is the enforcement authority ( the teeth, if you will) to the ‘Bill of Rights’.
Read the first 10 Articles to the ‘Bill of Rights’. Do they pertain to the ‘People’ or the ‘State’?
Very nice blog.
Light House Collectible