Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Dr. Tom Barrett
Bio: Dr. Tom Barrett
Date:  October 23, 2006
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

How the Democrats Would Fight the War on Terror

Should the Democrats gain control of Congress, they will first declare that the War on Terror is not a war at all. They will say it is a law enforcement matter. How do we know this? Because that’s what they have been saying all along.

Should the Democrats gain control of Congress, they will first declare that the War on Terror is not a war at all. They will say it is a law enforcement matter. How do we know this? Because that’s what they have been saying all along. We are in a war which requires the use of every resource possible, the most important of which are our uniformed service personnel. The Democrats want to fight it with FBI agents in neat business suits.

Space does not permit me to comment upon the host of whining and bleating complaints of the Democrats that flowed from their collective mouths upon the passage of this bill. (See the LINK to the full text of the bill below.) I will allow Democrat Senator Russ Feingold to speak for his fellows, as he often does. The quotations contained herein are from a speech Feingold gave (see LINK below) on the floor of the Senate. Although it is addressed to the President, Feingold is (as usual) playing to the press in this diatribe.

As is his custom, Feingold lies throughout his speech. As is my custom, I will point out each of his prevarications.

“Not only that, this legislation would deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere…the ability to challenge their detention in court. Among its many flaws, this is the most troubling - that the legislation seeks to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus.”

Read the Act yourself. In no place does it seek “to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus” for American citizens (which is what Feingold not-too-subtly implies). It simply assumes what this country has always assumed: that the Constitution was written by and for the American people. Citizens. Habeas Corpus (the right to challenge one’s detention in court) is promised to American citizens in the Constitution. Nowhere is it promised to non citizens.

This is true of many rights and privileges afforded to US citizens. Non citizens cannot vote in our elections (unless the Democrats get their way). Non citizens cannot hold public office. Non citizens cannot obtain a US passport. And the list goes on.

Feingold and his fellow Democrats are trying to play on fears that, by limiting the power of illegal combatants to access our courts, the rights of citizens will somehow be limited. That’s why he uses false and inflammatory language like, “…seeks to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus.” He knows that is a lie, but he also knows it will scare citizens.

(Democrats like to rule by fear. Look at what they did in the 2000 presidential elections. They hired thousands of telemarketers to call elderly citizens and lie to them: “Did you know that if Bush is elected, he will take away your Social Security?” This is not hearsay. I personally spoke with dozens of frightened seniors, including my own mother, who received such calls.)

What does the Constitution have to say about Habeas Corpus? As you read this, keep in mind the words of the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This document was written by “…the people of the United States” in order to “…secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Do you see anything in there about “securing the blessings of liberty” for people waging an illegal war against the United States? We need to be concerned with securing them in prison for a long, long time. The Democrats want these terrorists to have full access to the courts we pay for. They also want us to pay millions of our hard-earned tax dollars for their defense.

Article I, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Far from the Constitution promising Habeas Corpus to non citizens, this section (the only place in the Constitution where the phrase “Habeas Corpus” is found) states that it can be suspended for US citizens. So to limit Habeas Corpus for non citizens who have pledged to destroy our nation and liberties is perfectly reasonable and constitutional.

Notice that the Constitution states that Habeas Corpus can be suspended for US citizens in times of invasion. Has not our country been invaded by thousands of terrorists who operate with impunity from mosques throughout our nation? Have we not been invaded by millions of illegal aliens who threaten to destroy our economy by using services paid for by tax-paying citizens? If Habeas Corpus can be suspended for citizens in times of invasion, why not for the invaders?

Feingold goes on to say, “We should be working to provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice. We can do that quite well without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.”

Once again, search the Constitution. (The full text of the Constitution and other important Founding Documents can be found on our website.) You won’t find any mention of Habeas Corpus or any other “basic rights” imagined by Feingold “guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.”

Do I believe even terrorists who laugh with glee as they murder thousands of innocent men, women and children deserve to be treated fairly and humanely? Of course. And our nation does just that. But do I believe they should receive the same treatment as a citizen, as Feingold and the Democrats believe? Only a fool would think so.

The way the President has dealt with detainees has saved tens of thousands of American lives. The fact that they can hold these people and discover other plots against Americans by interrogating them has likely saved the lives of many of the people who oppose the Act.

Why do I believe this? How many times have we seen a plot like this on television? A serial killer has been caught by the cops. They know he has abducted a little girl and buried her alive. Time is running out. She only has a limited amount of air in her underground chamber. When the police try to find her location to save her, he says the magic words: “I want my lawyer.” The police stop questioning him, and the little girl dies.

Do you want the people who plotted the mass murders of 9-11 to have access to a system that would stop our military from preventing many more 9-11s? The way this Administration has handled things, further attacks on our nation have been prevented since September, 2001. If the Democrats get control of Congress, all that will change. The terrorists will be able to play the system the same way as the serial killer.

Feingold says he is “…concerned about this provision because we care about the Constitution, because we care about the image that America presents to the world as we fight the terrorists.” What an idiot! We are at war, fighting for the preservation of our lives and liberties. And this stooge is concerned about our “image”!

“Mr. President, I am also very concerned about the definition of unlawful enemy combatant that is included in this legislation.” Here’s the definition: “The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means - ‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces).” I don’t have any problem with that; do you?

“Mr. President, this legislation has been justified as necessary to allow our government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Yet if you look at the fine print of this legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that.” You will be shocked to learn that Mr. Feingold is lying once again. There is no “fine print.” Read it for yourself. He uses this kind of language to make it appear that the authors of the bill were engaged in some kind of nefarious conspiracy to hide the bill’s real intent from us. (By the way, the bill is supported by the 25% of Democrats who still care about America more than their party.)

Finally, let’s talk about the REAL fairness issue here. The truth is that “enemy combatants” get a better deal from our legal system than our own citizens do (a fact which you will never hear from the Democrats). Listen to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Interesting, that. “Enemy combatants” can only be convicted and sentenced to death for waging war on the United States. A US citizen, on the other hand, can be convicted of treason (which carries a maximum penalty of death) for simply giving “…aid and comfort” to our enemies. In fact, one Adam Gadahn, an American-born convert to Islam who joined al Qaeda, recently became the first American to be indicted on federal charges of treason since World War II. (See LINK below.)

So, the terrorists are actually treated better by the system than our own citizens. If the Democrats want the terrorists to be treated by the same rules as our own citizens, let’s charge them with treason. There are thousands of non citizens living right here in the US who have openly given aid and comfort to the terrorists. They support them, propagandize for them, and raise money for them. And we don’t have to go to Afghanistan to arrest them.

Why have I taken the time to document the way the Democrats would handle terrorism? Because you are in grave danger. If the Democrats are able to take advantage of the Foley debacle, the timing of which they engineered to change the course of the election (see LINK below), it will become impossible to convict terrorists. If they gain control of Congress, their rule will include reversing all the meticulous work the Republicans have put into devising a system of military courts which treats detainees fairly, while allowing us to interrogate them to prevent further attacks on America.

The Democrats are fighting for the terrorists, not because they care about them. They are using this situation as a political club with which to bash the Republicans so they can take power.

People often write and ask me how they can help win the war on terror. Here’s how. Do everything you can to defeat the 75% of Democrats who voted against the Military Commissions Act. By doing that, they publicly put themselves in the position of aiding and abetting the enemy. Let your conscience be your guide regarding voting for the patriotic Democrats who voted for the bill. But don’t let one of the 75% keep their power.

And don’t just go out and vote. That’s vital, because many Conservatives get complacent in mid-term elections. But do more. Encourage others to vote. Give someone a ride to their precinct. Talk about the issues with your friends. Be a citizen.

Dr. Tom Barrett
Conservative Truth (Publisher, Editor)

Send email feedback to Dr. Tom Barrett


Notes: 

Full Text of the Military Commissions Act

Democrat Russ Feingold’s Speech in Opposition to the Military Commissions Act

American Charged with Treason

Who Knew? Who Benefited? (Article about how the Democrats engineered the Foley revelations to be released just before the elections)

Biography - Dr. Tom Barrett

Dr. Tom Barrett has been an ordained minister for 30 years. He has written for local and national publications for most of his life, and has authored several non-fiction books. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio programs, and speaks at seminars nationwide. Tom is the editor and publisher of Conservative Truth, an email newsletter read by over fifty thousand weekly which focuses on moral and political issues from a Biblical viewpoint.

Tom is Publisher and Editor of ConservativeTruth.org.


Read other commentaries by Dr. Tom Barrett.

Visit Dr. Tom Barrett's website at Conservative Truth

Copyright © 2006 by Dr. Tom Barrett
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved