« Unexpected! | Main | Part of Barack Obama's New Strategy for Fighting Terrorism is Ordering Intelligence Agents to do What They Should Have Been Doing All Along »

A terrorist is... "a person who does not belong to our culture"

That's how liberals believe you and I define the term.

Certainly this liberal:

We are and should be more worried about the Miranda rights of any perpetrator, because ... once the gloves are off, it is difficult to put them back on again.  Who is to say how the definition of "terrorist" might change over the years?  At this point, we seem to have a clear idea that a terrorist is someone "other" ... a person who does not belong to our culture.  But what happens when the government decides that anyone speaking out against a sitting president is a "terrorist" or might have terrorist affiliations?  I know that sounds silly and well, we have the First Amendment.  Or do we?  If Miranda rights do not apply to everyone within our borders, including "terrorists" ... then they can be suspended for us too.  It really is an all or nothing deal ... if those rights do not apply to everyone, then they can at some point be suspended for anyone.

What happens when they come for you?  Don't you want to have those protections?  I know I do.  The Miranda rights do force our justice system to work harder in order to successfully prosecute a case against an offender and we find people who are innocent sitting on death row.  It is not infallible so the ordinary citizen (including suspected terrorists) needs to have as many protections against the almost overwhelming power of the state as they possibly can.

There's much to say about this but none of what comes to my mind is truly printable.

What comes to your mind?



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (16)

I thought everyone here wer... (Below threshold)

I thought everyone here were worried about the erosion of our constitutional rights? However those rights are diminished is not good for our country. We are a country of laws. If our laws can't deal with terrorist then we have lost and to compensate we will become the authoritarian state of all of our nightmares.

Terrorist, given away by the name, try to induce fear in a population. Are you afraid? Guess who just won?

I kind of remember a few post on this site that describe all Muslims as terrorists. "Other" is too inclusive, but not too far off.

Hmmmmm....a "terrorist" is ... (Below threshold)

Hmmmmm....a "terrorist" is an "other"?

The shit head liberal who wrote that obviously doesn't know how to use a dictionary. Was McVey an "other culture"?

But what... (Below threshold)

But what happens when the government decides that anyone speaking out against a sitting president is a "terrorist" or might have terrorist affiliations?

Ahem...anyone remember this?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

The report listed returning veterans as possible terrorists links to the US.

GarandFan: "The shit head l... (Below threshold)

GarandFan: "The shit head liberal..."


Once this person gets mugge... (Below threshold)

Once this person gets mugged, then I might read their BS.

For me it returns to an arg... (Below threshold)

For me it returns to an argument that has been discussed here and elsewhere - that is whether these acts are military or criminal actions. I believe radical Islam has declared war on the United States and more generally what one would term Western culture. I believe president Bush acknowledged that and treated terrorism as an act of war. Whether the nationality of the terrorist is foreign or domestic, if he (she) is supported by a known terrorist group then the terrorist act is an act of war. The writer cited above appears to me to accept the outlook of the Obama administration that these acts are generally a criminal matter so it automatically places him in a much stronger position to argue for the reading of Miranda rights to terrorists. I don't think he even involves himself in this military versus criminal argument and so I am sure this same writer would consider the controversy over where to try KSM to be a waste of time. As far as I am concerned there is no mystery that Osama bin Laden and fundamenalist Islamic terror organizations have declared war on the United States. Whether they attack the military or civilians, whether they attack at foreign installations or on our own soil, it is an act of war.

The libtard has a point. If... (Below threshold)
John S:

The libtard has a point. If the economy collapses in hyperinflation and civil unrest results do you really believe this administration is NOT capable of suspending the Bill of Rights, the 2012 elections, and ruling by martial law? This is a president who abhors the U.S. Constitution. I'm guessing all registered Republicans will be rounded up as a terrorists.

"What comes to your mind?"-... (Below threshold)

"What comes to your mind?"-RICK

1) Your linked blog looks like a prescription drug advertisement aimed at the geriatric set.

2) None of the hyperlinks seemed to lead to the source article. Caltrate blog's link came up Jpeg.

Maybe I botched it. Was "it" Krauthammer?


Regarding apparent meme: treat terrorists as criminals, not as warriors. Constitutional rights apply to all "PERSONS". If the import of this fact doesn't seem important to those who claim Obama might hearken in a socialist dictatorship backed up by the full weight of the military and CIA, then those persons are in way over their heads.

This is completely absurd. ... (Below threshold)

This is completely absurd.

The question of trials for terrorists and enemy combatants are about people who commit acts of aggression against this country while they were outside out borders. The acts they planned and carried out are acts of war. They were committed by non-US citizens, not on US soil against US targets. Acts of war are handled by the military and are not bound by the rules of the laws of the United States, nor do I think they should be.

The people who have attempted to or have committed acts of aggression within our borders have been handled by law enforcement in accordance with our laws and I see no problem with this at this time. There is a separation to keep the ARMY etc from acting as a police force within our borders and there is a very good reason for it.

To now make the jump that the rights afforded to US citizens will be trumped and we will all be rounded onto boxcars is nothing but a scare tactic and has no basis in fact. To further say that "Anyone" who performs an act of violence anywhere in the world should be afforded the same rights as anyone within the United States is no longer naive, but deadly wrong.

Committing mass murder and then knowing you can sit in a jail cell while your organization backs you with money for years and years on appeals (which will result in an overturned conviction or the case being thrown out due to technicalities) is the worst thing we could possibly do to keep our country safe. War is war and my family sleeps safe at night thanks to the jobs our service people perform.

Trying to go back and re-invent that will be a major Charlie-Foxtrot and the ultimate machine for our demise.

world citizen "We are ... (Below threshold)

world citizen "We are a country of laws. If our laws can't deal with terrorist then we have lost and to compensate we will become the authoritarian state of all of our nightmares."

And bryanD "Regarding apparent meme: treat terrorists as criminals, not as warriors. Constitutional rights apply to all "PERSONS"

Ok you two nitwits, lets talk Constitution and law shall we?

MeThinks you'll both agree the U.S. Supreme Court operates under the Constitution.

Given that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress and signed by the President, amended later that year and in 2009 is not only legal but was written using guidelines as set forth by the Supreme Court and fully endorsed by it.

You two can talk about "persons" under the constitution 'til you're both blue in the face but Military Commissions are both legal under U.S. law but a viable alternative to the civil court system.

Obama "went civilian" for one reason, and one reason only, handing the Gonad Bomber over to the military would have tossed a LARGE monkey wrench in his plans to close GITMO.

While on the subject... "<a... (Below threshold)

While on the subject... "Judge [U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan] tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee"

"Good thing" KSM will cop to his charges so he can turn his trial into a massive SHOW TRIAL and propaganda tool.

"I kind of remember a few p... (Below threshold)

"I kind of remember a few post on this site that describe all Muslims as terrorists."

comment by world fool

You would be wrong. Posters here know that all of the terrorists have been muslims. Not that all muslims are terrorists. Try not to be intentionally silly like bryan.

I would refer those gentle ... (Below threshold)

I would refer those gentle souls who think that terrorist should be given civilian constitutional rights to the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, the part about "illegal combatants". Illegal combatants have no rights under the US Constitution and are barred from claiming any rights at all under the Geneva Conventions. I'm not making this shit up.

I'm puzzled why this isn't the central argument in the national debate, and frankly stunned that our own president and the Attorney General seem to have no willingness to even talk about it. It is incredible to me that the country's highest legal authority and America's Commander in Chief can be so willfully ignorant of the laws they are sworn to represent.

The problem with treating t... (Below threshold)

The problem with treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts is that they are not criminal acts, but acts of war.

These jihadists are at war with the US. Period. The only sensible method to deal with them is to treat them as enemy combatants.

Treating the problem as a criminal one is what led to 9/11.

Liberal wackos will consite... (Below threshold)


Was McVey of "another cultu... (Below threshold)

Was McVey of "another culture"?


He was, indeed.

He was a totalitarian.

Same as every other (il)Liberal.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy