"Our U.S. constitutional rights."

"The rights that my son, as an infantryman in the United States Army, is willing to die for. The protections provided, thanks to you, sir, we're going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution and our country. This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we're going to deal with the terrorists. We don't have to go down that road."
...
"The events surrounding the Christmas day plot reflect the kind of thinking that led to September 11th. The threat then, as the 'USS Cole' was attacked, our embassies were attacked, it was treated like an international crime spree not like an act of war."
...
"That scares me for my children, for your children. Treating this as a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risks because that is not how radical Islamic extremists look at this. They know we are at war. To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, taking all recent events into consideration, Libya, the Osama killing, and so on, the big question is:

Do we, "the left", fundamentally agree or disagree with the implications of above statements.

to anyone charged under the same law which the protections are provided for.

You know, those things that they supposedly hate about us: our freedoms. Like the freedom to not just be snatched off the street and incarcerated with no charges.

LoL and unrec

It's downright sad when using Palin as the role model for a personal agenda sneaks in. We all don't agree on anything.

What you have just said is close to the point that I am trying to make.

and if you want anyone here to support it then you had better find someone who isn't quite as much of a joke to support that idea with some actual philosophical reasoning instead of xenophobic fear mongering.

I agree that it is dumb.

The only point I see is a slam at the Obama administration for killing OBL with obscure Palin talk.

.

meaning.

So, no on the face of it - because those statements have nothing to do with the current events mentioned.

1) The military doesn't provide rights - the Constitution does.

2) Terrorism is a CRIME, not an ACT OF WAR. Period. Terrorism is inflicted upon non-combatants. Treating it as an act of war guarantees failure in stopping it. War is waged against nations, not individual people. War is conducted using a specific set of rules and equipment because it is waged against nations, and trying to use those rules and equipment against individual people is metaphorically using a sledgehammer to swat an insect.

3) "Mere" law enforcement is kind of dismissive of law enforcement, isn't it? That's the problem with the attitude of the entire piece. It's less about finding a solution to a serious problem, and more about showing off how big the author's dick is.

"Number 1 world terrorist" in all his years (despite all the torture and the invasion of countries which had nothing to do with the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks) as pResident ...

but now, since President Obama did such a thing, we're all whining about "how" B.O. got the one who got away? (I know, I know ... George W. Bush avenged his daddy's "humiliation" of how Saddam Hussein "got away" ...)