Left-leaning civil liberties activists seem to forget the word "unreasonable" in their efforts to apply the Fourth Amendment to new Congressional law in these areas.
Civil libertarians, including prominent conservatives like Rep. Ron Paul and former Rep. Bob Barr, have made loud objections to the U.S. government's efforts to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9-11. In particular, they have protested the detainment and interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists at Gitmo, wiretapping, and other methods of surveillance. They don't represent the majority of Americans, many who privately say anyone involved with terrorism should be executed. They don't dare say this publicly since the law has evolved over time to provide those accused of crimes certain privileges, labeling them "rights." While some of these "rights" make sense in order to prevent the government from falsely imprisoning innocent people, at some point there is a line where these specified additional "rights" for suspected terrorists begin to infringe upon the rights of innocent Americans. How these terrorists' "rights" have been created and defined has mostly been decided in the U.S. courts by judges, not by Congress, by overturning legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Considering the judiciary is controlled by the left, and considering our Founding Fathers as a representative body wrote the Constitution establishing our rights, it is disturbing that a few lone judges are now deciding what our rights – and the "rights" of terrorists – are.
Since the 1960's, liberal activist judges have created so many new "rights" for criminals that it has become very difficult to get information out of accused terrorists or detain them for very long. It's a vicious cycle – law enforcement is no longer permitted to get information from suspected terrorists unless they coddle them, read them their right to remain silent, and supply them with a U.S. taxpayer-funded attorney to represent them, etc. Without the ability to obtain any information from them, it becomes difficult to justify detaining them without violating their (new) "rights."
Read the rest of this article at Townhall.com
Sorry Rachel. I tried to read the rest of your article, but that stupid pop-up of Ann Coulter came up and locked up my computer. I’ve read Townhall for years but I’m done with it until they remove this junk. I like Ann too, but this is an outrage.
Regarding interrogation, it’s possible to get information from subjects without torturing them, and usually more productive, at least according to this guy.
But what does he know? He only got results like the intel on Zarqawi’s whereabouts…
On the other hand, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spilled his guts after being waterboarded at Gitmo. But what do those guys know? They only got intel from the principal architect of the worst terrorist attack to ever take place on American soil.
Actually Patrick, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told so many falsehoods after his torture (his was also likely flown to Jordan at one point and tortured there) that the information provided was completely useless.