The Far Right has to remember that this is America (which it is my impression that they hate America) and one of the things this makes us different (and better) then many other countries is THE RULE OF LAW!
If you don’t have Justice For All then you really don’t have justice for any.
It is interesting that “THE RULE OF LAW” is drug out to justify the outrage du jour, but “that old thing, the Constitution” is just so inconvenient when the libs pet project is floated.
ANandy, the only case you’ve got for liberal “pet projects” ignoring the Constitution is related to your distaste for the General Welfare Clause. And that’s fine. But your side has had remarkably little luck overturning federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Good luck with the whole 10th Amendment attack on the current reform package.
Meanwhile, your indignation would seem a little more sincere if it were matched with similar concern over the last administration’s wanton abridgments of the 4th Amendment.
ANandy,
Can you read and understand the 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution? If so, what is it about “The Rule of Law” that offends you so much?
Who cares where they get coddled and kissed? America is going downhill because of people like the Lib-freak-a-zoids that post here. That’s right, I said, “Lib Freak-a-zoids!”
churchill, take a chill pill. The question in my mind is why the previous administration took people completely out of ANY justice system. Then we can talk about what we should be doing here. I’m fine with putting them through the courts; I’m fine with putting them through military tribunals as long as they follow the proper procedure, but first we have to decide if they are prisoners of war or not!
Wow. Getting a lot of name-calling from the conservatives here. From NoFearPup I expect it. He’s nowhere near as bad as scottfreitas, but his posts frequently reek of bitterness nonetheless.
But churchillwasright is turning into a bit of a disappointment. A petty taunt and a misspelling (made more obvious by the screaming capital letters)?
Instead of trusting the sound constraints of our Constitution (which stipulates that we our bound by the international treaties we ratify), I only see Holder’s opponents arguing for expedience. Essentially their argument boils down to the notion that rules and principles are all well and good in theory. But please don’t expect us to follow them in practice.
The argument is typically accompanied by nice phrases like “tough on terror” and “kid’s gloves are off”. But we all know that these are little more than platitudes meant to soothe us even as the very ideals we demand our public servants must defend are betrayed. It’s well intentioned, no doubt. But it is no less a betrayal.
During the questioning of Holder, one of the Republican senators stated quite clearly that his concern with the trial being held in civilian court was that there was a possibility – no matter how slight – that the jury might acquit the defendant. And THEN what would we do? At least with a military tribunal, he said, we could guarantee a conviction. Good old American justice, eh?
tpenna over 14 years ago
Nicely done, Davies!
kennethcwarren64 over 14 years ago
Great cartoon.
The Far Right has to remember that this is America (which it is my impression that they hate America) and one of the things this makes us different (and better) then many other countries is THE RULE OF LAW!
If you don’t have Justice For All then you really don’t have justice for any.
ANandy over 14 years ago
It is interesting that “THE RULE OF LAW” is drug out to justify the outrage du jour, but “that old thing, the Constitution” is just so inconvenient when the libs pet project is floated.
tpenna over 14 years ago
ANandy, the only case you’ve got for liberal “pet projects” ignoring the Constitution is related to your distaste for the General Welfare Clause. And that’s fine. But your side has had remarkably little luck overturning federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Good luck with the whole 10th Amendment attack on the current reform package.
Meanwhile, your indignation would seem a little more sincere if it were matched with similar concern over the last administration’s wanton abridgments of the 4th Amendment.
hastynote Premium Member over 14 years ago
ANandy, Can you read and understand the 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution? If so, what is it about “The Rule of Law” that offends you so much?
Have you stopped taking your meds again?
charliekane over 14 years ago
I’ve said it before.
The entire matter should have been treated as a criminal investigation/prosecution. The “war on terror” has been a misguided project.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
And yet the right wing seemed to have no problem with Bush eviscerating the Constitution.
person918 over 14 years ago
wait… wasn’t the reason that these detainees weren’t subject to the rules of the Geneva convention precisely because they weren’t prisoners of war?
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Who cares where they get coddled and kissed? America is going downhill because of people like the Lib-freak-a-zoids that post here. That’s right, I said, “Lib Freak-a-zoids!”
kennethcwarren64 over 14 years ago
Conservatives love the flag, hate everything it stands for.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Oooh, we’re going to try the Gitmo detainees in New York. I feel so much better now ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE GOING TO HELL…
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
churchill, take a chill pill. The question in my mind is why the previous administration took people completely out of ANY justice system. Then we can talk about what we should be doing here. I’m fine with putting them through the courts; I’m fine with putting them through military tribunals as long as they follow the proper procedure, but first we have to decide if they are prisoners of war or not!
tpenna over 14 years ago
Wow. Getting a lot of name-calling from the conservatives here. From NoFearPup I expect it. He’s nowhere near as bad as scottfreitas, but his posts frequently reek of bitterness nonetheless.
But churchillwasright is turning into a bit of a disappointment. A petty taunt and a misspelling (made more obvious by the screaming capital letters)?
Instead of trusting the sound constraints of our Constitution (which stipulates that we our bound by the international treaties we ratify), I only see Holder’s opponents arguing for expedience. Essentially their argument boils down to the notion that rules and principles are all well and good in theory. But please don’t expect us to follow them in practice.
The argument is typically accompanied by nice phrases like “tough on terror” and “kid’s gloves are off”. But we all know that these are little more than platitudes meant to soothe us even as the very ideals we demand our public servants must defend are betrayed. It’s well intentioned, no doubt. But it is no less a betrayal.
cdward over 14 years ago
During the questioning of Holder, one of the Republican senators stated quite clearly that his concern with the trial being held in civilian court was that there was a possibility – no matter how slight – that the jury might acquit the defendant. And THEN what would we do? At least with a military tribunal, he said, we could guarantee a conviction. Good old American justice, eh?