Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My Friday night with Richard Perle

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 03:54 PM
Original message
My Friday night with Richard Perle
Saturday, May 8, 2010 15:09 ET
My Friday night with Richard Perle

The neocon Iraq war flack says terror suspects should lose their citizenship. No surprise: he gets his facts wrong
By Joan Walsh There's still no video available, but while normal people were enjoying their Friday night, I spent part of mine debating Richard Perle, the neocon architect of the Iraq war, also known as the "Prince of Darkness," about Sen. Joe Lieberman's unconstitutional bill to strip terror suspects of their U.S. citizenship. The transcript is below.

I got to make my key points: Not only is it unconstitutional, it's also really dumb. Since even Lieberman admits the accused would have to have a chance to dispute the charges before losing his or her citizenship, the law would impede terror investigations, not expedite them. Eric Holder and his lawyers would be in court right now, trying to prove Faisal Shazhad should be expatriated, rather than figuring out who else might be involved in the Times Square bombing and how to make sure related attacks aren't planned. Nothing in this legislation would make the U.S. safer.

Now, I can't imagine any attorney general, except maybe Alberto Gonzales, putting Lieberman's scapegoating ahead of doing what they should to keep the nation safe. What Lieberman and his cosponsor Scott Brown are doing is demagoguery.

But it's also true that the bill as written is so broad it wouldn't only apply to someone arrested for suspicion of a terrorist act; it includes anyone who gives "material support" to terrorists, which could include contributing money to a group that may eventually support, or have supported, something the U.S. construes as terrorism. Perle confirms that interpretation in the interview, and supports it.

More:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/05/08/my_debate_with_richard_perle/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. What they are saying is that they want the power of a king.
Only a king can keep us safe...but we will not call him a king, because that would be unconstitutional, but we want that power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Emperor, not King.
Only an Emperor can "keep us safe", and he's gotta have a free hand, and we just have to trust him no matter what he botches or how bad he botches it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC