You think Gore is still sore about 2000? Speech . . .
It is an extraordinary blessing to live in a nation so carefully designed to protect individual liberty and safeguard self-governance and free communication. But if George Washington could see the current state of his generation's handiwork and assess the quality of our generation's stewardship at the beginning of this twenty-first century, what do you suppose he would think about the proposition that our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime. All that is necessary, according to our new president is that he - the president - label any citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant," and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen's liberty - even for the rest of his life, if the president so chooses. And there is no appeal.
The first sentence is off the charts. When has Gore ever been a champion of individual liberty? The level of proof that he expects of Bush to lock up terrorists is much higher than the level of proof he expects from environmentalists that are screaming that the sky is falling. Gore wants to change individual behavior wherever an owl might be. He’s more than willing to punish successful individuals by taxing them at higher rates in order to buy votes of the less fortunate. To Gore and many left wing thinkers, the only individuals worth protecting are criminals.
What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners - and that any law or treaty, which attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together.
At least Gore talked about citizens in first paragraph. I don’t know why Thomas Jefferson would care one lick about what we do to enemy combatants. We didn’t sign a treaty with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or any group funding or supporting terrorists. Why should we tie our hands when our citizens are getting their heads chopped off in the Middle East?
What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush's assertion that he has the inherent power - even without a declaration of war by the Congress - to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States.
Gore didn’t seem to be making these complaints when he was Vice President and the administration went after Serbia.
How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current President's recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief.
Is this Gore’s version of situational ethics? He didn’t think the “rule of law” was such a good idea when it prevented Clinton from lying under oath.
It takes balls to support activist judges that re-write the constitution whenever convenient and then complain that Bush is ignoring the founders vision. After spending a career walking over individual liberty for the overall “benefit of mankind” Gore can suddenly see the virtue in letting people alone. I wonder if Gore will allow such indulgences to those of us who aren’t trying to kill our fellow citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment