Hat tip: Joe.
New York desperately needs more anti-terror funding and tighter gun control laws to guard against the next attempted attack on the city, Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly told Congress Wednesday.
Bloomberg cited the handgun found in the van of Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahraz. He noted new federal stats showing that suspects on terrorism watchlists tried to buy weapons more than 1,200 times in the last six years and were successful 90% of the time.
Because, you know, more laws against guns would've kept him from parking a bomb on the street.
Even more remarkable, is this:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) backed Bloomberg's plea for more Homeland anti-terror funding while breaking with the Obama administration on how the arrest of Shahraz was handled.
"I don't believe somebody like Shahraz should receive Miranda rights," Lieberman said. Terrorism suspects "ought to be turned over to the military justice system" Lieberman said. The person he's talking about is a US citizen. So much for innocent until proven guilty.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the term for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments explicitly limit the Federal government's powers, protecting the rights of the people by preventing Congress from abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, and the right to bear arms, preventing unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination, and guaranteeing due process of law and a speedy public trial with an impartial jury. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to the citizenry or States. These amendments came into effect on December 15, 1791, when ratified by three-fourths of the States.
You'd think a Jewish Senator would understand the horrors of a government that tries to strip people of their inalienable (un-removable) rights. I think Mr. Lieberman is speaking about naturalized U.S. Citizens, but I think the larger issue is most important: That ALL citizens, regardless of when they became citizens, naturalized or natural-born, deserve due process and equality under the law. If we try to strip a citizen of their rights before they are tried, what real rights do we have? If we strip them of their rights, then they are also stripped of legal representation based on a "charge." If you lose your rights when charges are brought against you, what good are rights, anyway?
If we strip citizenship from them, and then a military tribunal finds them innocent, then what? A military tribunal cannot grant, nor restore, citizenship. What of home-grown terror suspects? Would they, too, be stripped of citizenship and tried before a military court? Where would they end up if their sentence was less than life or execution, when their time was served? Try this one on and see if it sounds American in Ideology:
(Note: The following is for illustrative purposes only, and does not reflect, nor should it be taken in full or part without this disclaimer attached.)
"I don't believe somebody like Goldberg should receive Miranda rights," Herr Liebermann said. "Jewish suspects ought to be turned over to the military justice system" Herr Liebermann said.
Or, for an analogy from our own (US) history:
"I don't believe somebody like Martin Luther King Jr. should receive Miranda rights," Bubba Lieberman said. "Black suspects ought to be turned over to the military justice system" Bubba Lieberman said.
(Note: The previous is for illustrative purposes only, and does not reflect, nor should it be taken in full or part without this disclaimer attached.)
Now, if you found the previous two statements outrageous, all I did was replace a race or religion with a different noun.
Everyone deserves equal protection under the law, and equal treatment. Instead of a ridiculous idea that we could, or should, somehow strip citizenship before a trail is held, instead change the law so suspected terrorists are tried before a special court, with access and clearance to all information, and that terrorism suspects, and their counsel, shall be sequestered during the trial, and that all "collection methods" shall be heard by the judge alone. The only verdict that this court can issue is "innocent" or "guilty," (and no permutations of either) and the only sentece it can issue is "Freedom" or "Death." The United States Supreme court will give ample time--six months--for appealing the verdict, then it will be carried out. Methods for the execution will be equally simple: feet fed slowly into a chipper shredder; or suspended by the neck, slowly, and weights incrementally added to your feet until you suffocate. (When they pass out, we take them down, revive them, and feed them into the chipper shredder.) Their remains are then fed to pigs.
There. Nice, simple justice, punishments that are neither cruel (compared to the crime) nor unusual (compared to public perception of unusual). Courts with acceptable security and an appeals process. No laws broken, no rights violated. Treason and sedition are capital offenses, Terrorism is simply a violent form of both.