--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/29/06 7:14:16 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Excellent! Well thought out and well said. Notice Newt did not > say "let me" > > make the new rules. He said we should all work together to agree on > new rules > > that we can live with. But then maybe some think that losing an > occasional > > city is worth protecting the rights of terrorists. > > Of course, it has nothing to do with protecting > the rights of terrorists, and that kind of idiotic > and offensive remark is why you people lost the > election. > > Well, as far as I can tell Newt is talking about interfering in terrorists > use of the Internet, not yours. So who's *right* would he be interfering with? > It certainly wasn't the Administration that wanted to confer constitutional > rights on foreign enemies or Geneva convention rights on a group that never > agreed to sign the Geneva convention or fight according to it's rules.
Get this straight, please: Nobody--NOBODY--wants to protect the rights of terrorists, except the terrorists themselves. What you and your ilk seem to be completely unable to comprehend is that there is a difference between a terrorist and a *suspected* terrorist. A *suspected* terrorist may or may not be an *actual* terrorist. If the rights of *suspected* terrorists aren't protected, it means we all lose those rights. Not to understand this is not to understand what we are supposedly fighting for in the first place, not to understand what America stands for--or stood for before this proto-fascist administration took over and started tearing up the Constitution.
