I never liked this term no matter which side promotes it. It involves legislators compromising their principles. I contend that they aren't elected to "work across the aisle" but to promote and act on those principles on which they campaigned and for which they were elected.
Usually the minority party promotes it. Consider the current speaker's comments prior to her party regaining control of Congress in 2006.
"[I would like] to come as close as you can in the political reality to a bipartisan management of the House"
When the party in the minority assumes the majority though, it's fun listening to them change their tone. Consider the current speaker's recent comments.
"We also have the responsibility, if we can't find that common ground, to stand our ground on principles. If we can't find a bipartisan way to do it, we are not going to say, 'Well, if it is not bipartisan, we are not going to do it.' We are going to do what we believe."
This is a welcome comment that I hope the GOP issues when they eventually assume the majority in the cycles of politics. Her party has the majority duly elected by the people, so I would expect them to push their agenda unless in the midst of that elction cycle their constituents strongly petition them otherwise. Each member of that majority must decide how much they will compromise their principles versus how much they desire re-election.
The question before each politician is this: "How many people voted for me to be bipartisan and work together and how many voted for me to advance my principles which will probably involve no bipartisanship?"
Friday, January 29, 2010
KSM's Rights
The POTUS has decided to at least consider moving the murder trial of KSM et al out of Manhattan. If KSM et al have the full rights of a citizen, then shouldn't their trial be held in Manhattan? The beginning of the 6th amendment to the Constitution reads...
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
In order to have a jury of the district hear and consider the facts of a trial and render a decision, shouldn't it be relatively convenient for them to attend the trial? The district where the crime took place is Manhattan; therefore the trial should take place in Manhattan. (There is precedent for moving such a high profile case though; Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted in Denver, CO despite committing his heinous crime in OKC.) NY state and city officials want it somewhere else due to security and cost concerns. Although Mayor Bloomberg initially favored the venue, an estimated annual security cost of $200 million must have changed his mind. I can't blame him. They are already in the hole.
The DOJ seemed to be standing their ground on the choice of venue despite the howls from Manhattan and New York citizens, members of Congress outside of NY and other people across the fruited plain. What or who changed their mind or better yet why? If this is the right thing to do, to ensure that their Constitutional rights are preserved, then why backslide? Justice is blind...or it should be. The DOJ's decision to conduct the trial in Manhattan seemed to have been made independent of the POTUS, but he supported it. Now he seems to be leaning on them to move it. Did enough of the NY political machine howl after watching the electorate rise up in both the polls and in recent elections?
It appears to be just politics as usual. At least there's some "hope" that the mood of the public can change a bad idea into a not-so-bad idea. Let me suggest a better idea. How about using the military tribunal system that Congress has established and oversees, and that many of whom are now recommending, to try and detain, or release, KSM et al along with all other enemy combatants, who are not citizens, in this continuing war on Islamic terror?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
In order to have a jury of the district hear and consider the facts of a trial and render a decision, shouldn't it be relatively convenient for them to attend the trial? The district where the crime took place is Manhattan; therefore the trial should take place in Manhattan. (There is precedent for moving such a high profile case though; Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted in Denver, CO despite committing his heinous crime in OKC.) NY state and city officials want it somewhere else due to security and cost concerns. Although Mayor Bloomberg initially favored the venue, an estimated annual security cost of $200 million must have changed his mind. I can't blame him. They are already in the hole.
The DOJ seemed to be standing their ground on the choice of venue despite the howls from Manhattan and New York citizens, members of Congress outside of NY and other people across the fruited plain. What or who changed their mind or better yet why? If this is the right thing to do, to ensure that their Constitutional rights are preserved, then why backslide? Justice is blind...or it should be. The DOJ's decision to conduct the trial in Manhattan seemed to have been made independent of the POTUS, but he supported it. Now he seems to be leaning on them to move it. Did enough of the NY political machine howl after watching the electorate rise up in both the polls and in recent elections?
It appears to be just politics as usual. At least there's some "hope" that the mood of the public can change a bad idea into a not-so-bad idea. Let me suggest a better idea. How about using the military tribunal system that Congress has established and oversees, and that many of whom are now recommending, to try and detain, or release, KSM et al along with all other enemy combatants, who are not citizens, in this continuing war on Islamic terror?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Options for preventing attacks
I am really surprised at the nation's ho-hum reaction to the recent failed attack on Northwest Airline Flight 253 bound for Detroit on Christmas day. It has only been a little over eight years since the last successful attack on the homeland. How soon we have forgotten and become complacent. Everyone should be breathing a collective sigh of relief that this terrorist was incompetent and unsuccessful. So should we rely solely on the ineptitude of terrorists to prevent future attacks?
The recent headline, "Lawmakers' goal: One step ahead", is a no-brainer, but how do you stay one step ahead? The article essentially lays out two approaches being considered by lawmakers. One approach is enhanced airport screening using full-body imaging and/or randomly choosing people to take off shoes, belts, other clothes, open bags, confiscate sharp objects and tubes of liquid, etc. Nearly everyone who has flown since 911 has either seen or experienced one of these methods. (If they're going to take my toothpaste, at least give me a few bucks to replace it.) Now this method isn't being touted as a cure-all, but if it's important now, why didn't TSA continue to employ them, or better yet, why did Congress, in their oversight role, become lax in pressing them to continue employing them? I don't know how a terrorist could carry out his or her plans if this method was fully employed, but I don't want to kill the infidel either. Faith makes people do extraordinary things...for better or worse.
The second approach is not politically correct but is more effective; therefore it will probably not be employed based on the desire of most politicians not to offend anyone...even the sworn enemies of America whom we are formally fighting in two countries. That approach is Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn's desire to "treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant." A spokeswoman for the senator said, "Cornyn thinks the Nigerian suspect shouldn’t have been given a lawyer, read his rights and encouraged to remain silent. Cornyn believes we must put a stop to this harmful trend and afford our intelligence community with the tools they need to secure the American people before we afford would-be-terrorists rights they have not earned." In other words, ask him some questions without a lawyer present which leads to the second part of this approach: information sharing. “It looks like various parts of the government had pieces of information, but they just weren’t put together,” said Texas Republican Congressman Thornberry. Remember the 911 report which chastised the intelligence community for not sharing information? Do we need another successful attack, another report and another bureaucracy?
If he had been a citizen, he would and should have these rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, he is not a citizen, so he has not earned them and should not be afforded them. Now that he has been told to remain silent and has counsel for his defense, he cannot "give up" the names, addresses and phone numbers of the other terrorists in his network, which by now has probably morphed into a new group with the same goal. Instead, he has been charged with attempting to destroy an airplane and for putting an explosive device on the same. Since he is being treated like a criminal instead of an enemy combatant, how about 289 counts of attempted murder? Is the DOJ more concerned with an airplane than with people? Is this justice?
The primary job of the federal government is to protect and defend the citizens of this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. It seems that the politicians would rather take away more of our liberties than defend them.
The recent headline, "Lawmakers' goal: One step ahead", is a no-brainer, but how do you stay one step ahead? The article essentially lays out two approaches being considered by lawmakers. One approach is enhanced airport screening using full-body imaging and/or randomly choosing people to take off shoes, belts, other clothes, open bags, confiscate sharp objects and tubes of liquid, etc. Nearly everyone who has flown since 911 has either seen or experienced one of these methods. (If they're going to take my toothpaste, at least give me a few bucks to replace it.) Now this method isn't being touted as a cure-all, but if it's important now, why didn't TSA continue to employ them, or better yet, why did Congress, in their oversight role, become lax in pressing them to continue employing them? I don't know how a terrorist could carry out his or her plans if this method was fully employed, but I don't want to kill the infidel either. Faith makes people do extraordinary things...for better or worse.
The second approach is not politically correct but is more effective; therefore it will probably not be employed based on the desire of most politicians not to offend anyone...even the sworn enemies of America whom we are formally fighting in two countries. That approach is Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn's desire to "treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant." A spokeswoman for the senator said, "Cornyn thinks the Nigerian suspect shouldn’t have been given a lawyer, read his rights and encouraged to remain silent. Cornyn believes we must put a stop to this harmful trend and afford our intelligence community with the tools they need to secure the American people before we afford would-be-terrorists rights they have not earned." In other words, ask him some questions without a lawyer present which leads to the second part of this approach: information sharing. “It looks like various parts of the government had pieces of information, but they just weren’t put together,” said Texas Republican Congressman Thornberry. Remember the 911 report which chastised the intelligence community for not sharing information? Do we need another successful attack, another report and another bureaucracy?
If he had been a citizen, he would and should have these rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, he is not a citizen, so he has not earned them and should not be afforded them. Now that he has been told to remain silent and has counsel for his defense, he cannot "give up" the names, addresses and phone numbers of the other terrorists in his network, which by now has probably morphed into a new group with the same goal. Instead, he has been charged with attempting to destroy an airplane and for putting an explosive device on the same. Since he is being treated like a criminal instead of an enemy combatant, how about 289 counts of attempted murder? Is the DOJ more concerned with an airplane than with people? Is this justice?
The primary job of the federal government is to protect and defend the citizens of this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. It seems that the politicians would rather take away more of our liberties than defend them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)