I’m not willing to concede much of anything to the left, but I will give them this; they’re ballsey. Let’s look at just a few recent examples.
Take the Democratic Senators re-invention of “Advice and Consent”. This moving target changes on a daily (hourly?) basis. An AP story reports the lastest twist.
Democrats say the courtesy calls from President Bush and his top aide, while appreciated, fall far short of the advice and consent consultations they expect before Bush announces a Supreme Court nominee.
Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois got a call Wednesday from White House chief of staff Andrew Card, who is with Bush in Europe for the Group of Eight summit.
Card also has called Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, but no names of possible nominees were mentioned, according to the lawmakers’ aides.
The Democrats said they want to know more – specifically, whom the president is considering – before Bush sends his first Supreme Court nomination to the Republican-controlled Senate for confirmation.
“To be meaningful, consultation should include who the president is really considering so we can give responsive and useful advice,” Kennedy said.
Durbin said he “stressed the importance of finding a nominee in the political mainstream.” In a statement, the senator said he welcomed the White House effort “to reach out in a bipartisan manner and actively consult” with lawmakers from both parties. [Emphasis mine]
Wow! The only thing I can conclude is that the Dem view is, “Tell us who you’re going to nominate and will tell you if they’re acceptable to us.” I’m just waiting for one of them to say what they are really wanting to say, “Here’s who you have to nominate.”
Then there is the Always Crying, Leftist Underminers, the ACLU, who can’t wrap their minds around the concept of “The Enemy”. They’ve decided that the five American citizens captured in Iraq must have due process through civilian courts. The vacationing Captain Ed understands.
The ACLU has two problems in this approach to the detention of Kar. First, the alleged crime occurred in Iraq, not the US, so the law that applies here is Iraqi law, not American law. Second, if the American military has detained Kar, it is because they suspect him of acting on behalf of the insurgency, which has attacked American military personnel in war zones throughout the area. That isn’t a civil crime — it’s an act of war. For that matter, if Kar conducted his actions in support of these attacks without wearing a uniform representing a legitimate state, impossible since the terrorists don’t have that kind of open endorsement, then Kar could be held as either a spy or a saboteur, neither of which gives him access to American courts.
One would think that lawyers at the ACLU would have studied law and understand the concept of jurisdiction. American courts have given civilian courts jurisdiction over those who have been captured outside of battle zones, and only under limited circumstances. Even in those cases, the decisions were incorrect and probably will eventually be reversed, but clearly does not apply here. Iraq has a functioning government and judicial system which can handle its own civil criminal cases. The only way Kar can claim to get American jurisdiction is if the Americans insist on trying him for treason, a death-penalty charge.
This continues the ACLU’s effort to push the Bush administration back to the failed criminal-justice approach to terrorism, the same indictment-based counterterrorism strategy that led the Clinton admnistration to balk at a deal to capture Osama bin Laden in the mid-90s. Using the courts to deal with global terrorism means that American troops must read all captured prisoners their rights and provide them lawyers. Can you imagine doing that in a war zone? It also means that the arresting servicemen would then have to be available to testify in the thousands of cases that would clog our court calendars instead of acting in defense of our country.
The ACLU knows exactly what it is doing. It has long since crossed from a responsible voice on civil rights to a partisan advocate of extremist left-wing politics, and the war on terror is just another example of this antipathy to America and its security.
Exactly. What just makes me shake my head in amazement is that they actually believe that this is a legitimate, viable position. I think I’m like many folks on the right who not only think that they are wrong, but can’t even begin to understand how they can even hold such views.
There are numerous other examples. See Michelle Malkins story on The Muslim Hate Crime That Wasn’t, SoCalPundit and Blogs For Bush on aid to Africa, and too many stories to list on the left gearing up for a SCOTUS fight.
I just can’t see the world with the same view as the left. That’s not a bad thing.
Added to the traffic jam at Outside the Beltway
Loading ...