 |
THE NEAL BOORTZ SHOW |
| Check out the Boortz Sponsors! |
|
THE NEAL BOORTZ SHOW |
| Check out the Boortz Sponsors! |
| Advertisement
|
Sometimes I just can’t figure
that guy out. Right now he’s on a
tear about this military tribunals thing. Barr
doesn’t like it, and I frankly don’t understand why.
I’ve read the President’s
Executive Order. I agree that there are some troubling aspects there …we can
tear those apart later. Right now
let’s deal with this military tribunal thing in the context of Bin Laden and
his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Let’s say that some of our
Special Forces guys are wandering around Ashcanistan and here comes Osama
holding his hands high … he’s giving up.
At this point our guys have four real options.
Kill the SOB right there
where he stands.
Turn him over to the United
Nations to be tried before the world court.
Bring him back to the
United States to be tried in a U.S. Federal Court.
Try him before a military
tribunal.
The best option?
Kill the SOB. A gut shot,
not one of those Special Forces headshots.
Let the bastard suffer.
But, let’s say he lives and
is captured. Look more closely at
the options.
A UN Trial.
Oh this would be just
wonderful. Since the day the United Nations was formed it has been
unfriendly toward the United States. In
recent decades the UN has been nothing less than an US taxpayer funded soapbox
for every petty dictator and activist in the world who has a gripe against
America.
Of late the UN has become more
than an international anti-American soapbox.
The UN is feeling quite bold right now.
Just a few months before the terrorist attacks the UN chastised the State
of Arizona for going forward with an execution the UN didn’t want to happen.
The UN actually stated that Arizona was subject to the mandates of the UN
courts and that election had been illegally conducted.
Also, have you ever paid
attention to the UN’s signature document when it comes to human rights?
This human rights treaty was touted by Bill Clinton as the finest
document in support of freedom in the history of the world.
Others might feel that honor belongs to the Magna Carta, the Declaration
of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. But,
no. Clinton says the UN Human
Rights Declaration is Numero Uno! Without
belaboring this point – you might be interested to know that the UN Human
Rights Declaration clearly states that humans have NO rights when it comes to
the goals and purposes of the United Nations.
So .. try Bin Laden or some
other terrorists captured in Afghanistan before a UN court?
A UN court is an anti-American court.
The trial would turn into a spectacle wherein the great unwashed would
parade in front of international television camera to denounce America as the
“true” terrorist Nation. The
actual trial of the terrorists would only be a subplot to the anti-American
agenda on center stage.
Try him in a US Court.
As soon as we drag that dirt
bag over to the United States he immediately earns the protection of the United
States Constitution. Yup –
that’s right. As long as the
terrorist (or any other criminal, for that matter) is (a) not an American
citizen and (b) not physically in America, he is not entitled to the protection
of our Constitution. No right to an
attorney. No right to a jury trial.
No right to confront his witnesses.
No right to appeal. But …
once they’re here, all bets are off.
Can you just imagine a trial on
American soil of Osama Bin Laden? Who
would want to serve on that jury? Every
juror would be a marked man or woman for the rest of their lives --- IF, that
is, they voted to convict. Osama is
very media savvy. He would seize
the opportunity to turn the trial into a spectacle of anti-Americanism. Why do we want to invite such a spectacle to take place right
here at home?
A Military Tribunal
George Washington did it.
So did Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Washington and Lincoln did it on American soil with American
defendants. The Supreme Court
passed on it. No problem.
There is no law, no court
ruling, no precedent which confers rights under the United States Constitution
on non-citizens who commit crimes overseas.
Look, the young men and women
we sent over there in the American uniforms don’t get full constitutional
protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services.
They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct.
Isn’t it somewhat strange that those opposed to military tribunals for
the terrorists want them to enjoy more rights than our own military men would
have?
I do have a theory about those
on the left who oppose the tribunal idea. They
WANT an anti-American spectacle. They
know a terrorist trial – especially one of Bin Laden – would be the media
event of the decade. What a time
for them to wheel out their anti-American agenda?
But how does that explain Bob
Barr?
LEAD STORY?
ABC led last night with the
story that the White House is not going to be open to tours this Christmas.
With all that is going on in this world, ABC decided that the most
important story out there was no Christmas tours at the White House.
What do you think? Bona fide news story? Or
just an attempt to put Bush in a negative light.
On that same ABC newscast they
did a bit about the abandoned US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.
The reporter asked an elderly man in the street if he thought there would
ever be another US Ambassador there. The
man’s response? “I pray for
that.” Then … that American
culture creeped in and this old man from Afghanistan started sounding like an
American teenage mall rat. His next
words … “I mean, you know ….. “
TALK ABOUT A ROCK AND A
HARD PLACE!
If you thought it was bad to be the Taliban lately, check out what Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday: “The United States is not inclined to negotiate surrenders, nor are we in a position, with relatively small numbers of forces on the ground, to accept prisoners.”
Apparently, there have been rumors
of a negotiated surrender of the remaining Taliban, Mullah Omar, and non-Afghan
supporters of Osama bin Laden that could allow them to flee to another country.
Rumsfeld didn't seem too keen on that idea. Just so there would be no
mistaking his position, he added the following: “Any idea that those
people in that town who have been fighting so viciously and who refuse to
surrender should end up in some sort of a negotiation which would allow them to
leave the country and go off and destabilize other countries and engage in
terrorist attacks on the United States is something that I would certainly do
everything I could to prevent. They’re people who have done terrible
things.”
So, if you’re fighting American troops, and you hear the leader of those troops say that surrender isn’t an option, and that they’re not in a mood to take care of prisoners, what does that leave you? I think that leaves you potential food for worms.
Remember how many chances President Bush gave the Taliban to give up bin Laden and the al-Qaeda? Remember their defiance during those opportunities? Their chances to save face has long since past. Now keep an eye on the U.N. to see if they try to step in to spare the lives of the remaining "evil doers."
MULLAH-LY, MULLAH-LY, MULLAH-LY, MULLAH-LY, LIFE IS BUT A DREAM
According to a report in London's "The Independent," Taliban leader Mullah Omar was ready to surrender Kandahar to the alliance until he had a "prophetic dream." The brother of an opposition leader was negotiating the surrender of the city and all seemed to be going well until yesterday when he reportedly was told that the Mullah had a dream in which he remained in power. To quote Omar precisely, "I have had a dream in which I am in charge for as long as I live." Uh, hey Omar, baby...we can easily make that prophecy come true. The question isn't how long do you want to rule, the question is, how long do you want to live? Obviously that question never occurred to him.
NOW HERE'S A REALLY STRANGE ONE
I'm not sure what to make of this. There are a couple of anonymous web browsing services out there which allow a surfer to browse without leaving "footprints" of where they've been. They allow one to send anonymous email (can't be traced) and many people use them to bypass their company's firewall in order to access blocked websites. On the good side, this allows people to access my website if their company's firewall blocks them from reaching boortz.com. The best-known ones are Anonymizer and Safe Web. On Monday, Safe Web announced that it is shutting down for the time being. The strangest part of this story is the AP report that Safe Web received $1 million in funding from the C.I.A. last year. Now why would the Central Intelligence Agency pay that much money to a company that theoretically could be used to make their job harder? Something is weird here.
MONEY TALKS AND BIN LADEN DOESN'T WALK
Until this week, the price on Osama bin Laden's head was a meager $5 million. I guess that wasn't quite enough incentive for Afghans to turn on a "guest," so now the bounty is a whopping $25 million. That should do the trick. With that much money, the average Afghan could afford to buy a two-story double-wide cave. I imagine that $5 million is beyond the comprehension of most Afghans, so $25 million is 5 times beyond their comprehension. Actually, the main reason the terrorists have been beyond our reach and nearly impossible to infiltrate is that their members are told that if they ever betray their fellow terrorists, not only will THEY be killed, but their family and their family's family will be killed. Even the Sopranos aren’t that cold.
Boost that reward a bit more and H. Ross Perot will be putting together another one of his commando teams. Speaking of that … why not just let the Israelis go get him?
BUT JANET RENO IS SHORTER THAN THAT, ISN'T SHE?
Speaking of the Soprano's, did you hear the Godfather yesterday? He had a great line. He was talking about how reports have indicated that Osama bin Laden might try to escape Afghanistan disguised as a woman. There is precedent here. It was rumored that Moammar Ghaddafy (Khaddafi, Gadhafi, Gheddafi, Kaddafi, Kadhafi, Kazzafi, Khadafy, Qadafi, Qaddafi, etc.) escaped death during our bombings of Libia in the 80's by doing exactly that -- dressing as a woman. The Godfather went on to say that if bin Laden managed to escape as a woman, the 6'5" terrorist could then travel to Florida and run for governor. "What I do know is this: if he made it out that way, he could easily come to Florida and run for governor. He'd probably get away with it and win election, as long as the Democrats made the right kind of ballot. At the very least, he could raise some big campaign money." Think about it.
ME THINKS SHE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE
President Bush yesterday named the Justice Department headquarters after former presidential brother and former Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In an apparent slap in the face of G.W.B., RFK's daughter made some disparaging remarks to the crowd before the president's arrival, about his anti-terrorism legislation. In her remarks, Ms. Kerry Kennedy-Cuomo (yes, she's married to Andrew Cuomo, son of Mario Cuomo and staunch supporter of Bill and Hillary...after all, he was a cabinet member) announced that her daughter, Cara, was in the audience. She then proceeded to tell her daughter as part of her speech, "Cara, if anyone tries to tell you this is the type of justice your grandpa would embrace, don't you believe it.''
There is some validity to her concerns in that there does seem to be some eagerness in the Bush Justice Department to compromise liberty and freedoms in order to attain security. The truth is that Kerry Cuomo’s father okayed many wiretaps and secret recordings that today would have been strenuously denounced by the ACLU and conservatives alike. It was Bobby Kennedy that approved the clandestine recordings of Martin Luther King, Jr. used by J. Edgar Hoover to try to derail Dr. King's civil rights movement. It was Bobby Kennedy that sidestepped the Constitution in an attempt to shut down the Mafia. While his goals may have been honorable in the latter case, his means were not. Even Alan Dershowitz would fight him if he were attempting to do that today. However, I would like to bring up a point that has yet to be understood, much less considered by the left. You CAN NOT judge previous generations by today's standards. Today Mark Twain is called by many, a racist. By the standards of his time, he was a social liberal. Even Teddy Roosevelt was a social liberal at the time, but he accepted as fact that idea that Caucasians were inherently superior to all other races. That makes him a racist in the CORRECT definition of the term.
Perhaps Kerry should spend some time with the history books before she spouts off again.
I DON'T THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT HARRY POTTER, DO YOU?
"The hardest job in Washington these days is commissioner of senatorial parking. He's got to allot space for 99 cars and a broomstick"
-- Michael Barone, editor of U.S News.
Now .. tell me.
How is he going to get away with this?
What if these words had come from Bob Barr?