Democrats win: Here come the constituency payoffs
posted at 11:40 am on April 2, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Democrats are just doing what any party does when they win power: Payback the folks that brung you. And no one should mistake voters with the folks that brung ‘em. The Democrats certainly aren’t.
First payoff: Unions.
Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues — such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders — with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.
Would unionizing airport security workers make us safer or make the system work better? That seems unlikely, to say the least. It would make airport security workers practically unfirable. But it would pay off the unions that strongarm members–in ways other political movement leaders can’t–into donating to the Democrat cause.
Second payoff: Terrorists.
Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.
And –
They also want to reopen last year’s law creating military commissions to restore the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects and to revise rules that allow convictions to be based in part on evidence yielded by interrogation methods that critics call torture.
The Gitmo detainees are captured illegal enemy combatants. They were captured battling against US troops during the war in Afghanistan, or in places like Pakistan, where they plotted attacks against Americans. They are not US citizens, and they are not common criminals. Granting them access to the rights afforded US citizens accused of common crime may be the most idiotic idea currently under discussion. And the Democrats are hell-bent to see it happen. Clearly they’re putting the rights of captured enemy combatants, who have never in our history been granted class access to civilian courts, above the rights and safety of the American people. Clearly, the Democrats believe they’re going to benefit from this somehow. The Democrats might be naive enough to believe that granting capture enemy combatants access to civilian courts would win the US favor with the so-called international community. And it might, a little. But will it help us win the war? Is this something average Americans even support?
There’s more in the story, about repealing the Bush tax cuts and tinkering with the Patriot Act. President Bush has promised to veto about 16 things the Democrats say they want to do. Veto or not, the Democrats will have put themselves on the record siding against the safety of Americans on several high-profile issues. They will have put themselves on the record as fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the enemy we’re fighting. If the Republicans don’t beat them back and then remind the voters of these efforts in 2008, they don’t deserve to regain power.
More: I forgot to highlight this quote.
“We have a very consequential and just system of justice. To create a system that is a dual system but not just is not acceptable, and that’s Guantanamo,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Feinstein makes it explicit: Terrorists captured on battlefields engaged in combat against US troops, or captured in faraway places plotting attacks against Americans, should have the exact same rights as US citizens. Khalid Sheik Mohammed should have the exact same rights in the US judicial system as his intended American victims. That’s where the Democrats stand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I want to sue congress for dental repairs.
Someone needs to pay for all the damage caused by all the gnashing of teeth since November.
unamused on April 2, 2007 at 11:48 AM
A fly in the ointment on their Gitmo plans.
JammieWearingFool on April 2, 2007 at 11:52 AM
The basic disconnect is that the Democrats brought the wrong lesson away from VietNam, and its colored their percetions ever since.
They don’t believe that Wars have consequence. They believe that we can loose a foreign war and it will make no difference to the American people.
They don’t understand that Viet Nam showed Bin Laden (according to his own writings) that America is vulnerable to attack by a low amount of casulties over an extended time because of the Media.
They truly seem to believe that loosing Iraq will have no consequence to America…
Romeo13 on April 2, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Typical. Yeah, what’s ACLU stand for again, the Al-Qaeda Civil Liberties Union?
CP on April 2, 2007 at 11:55 AM
All that is true, but what good is it if the general voting public is unaware of these facts? The MSM will make cover it as the Bush administration’s denial of detainee rights, and citizen rights (in connection with the Patriot Act).
That’s a big, big “IF” – the Republicans have become inept at conveying their arguments, and the Bush administration has taken the lead on that.
Rick on April 2, 2007 at 11:56 AM
All that is true, but what good is it if the general voting public is unaware of these facts? The MSM will
makecover it as the Bush administration’s denial of detainee rights, and citizen rights (in connection with the Patriot Act).Sorry – didn’t do a good job of proofing
Rick on April 2, 2007 at 11:58 AM
this is straight off fox news… notice this last paragraph… if I were the editor of Fox news… I would rewrite this way…
a basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution that protects U.S. Citizens from unlawful imprisonment.
Kaptain Amerika on April 2, 2007 at 11:59 AM
The Romans had the same problems, how did they solve them? Not by laying down and burying their heads in the sand.
It came from within, which sounds like a great title for the next summer blockbuster horror flick. Coming soon to a city near you!
tormod on April 2, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Which is exactly why I’m not optimistic. No one seems willing to fight.
Slublog on April 2, 2007 at 12:01 PM
No one in the administration, I mean.
Slublog on April 2, 2007 at 12:02 PM
“Khalid Sheik Mohammed should have the exact same rights in the US judicial system as his intended American victims. That’s where the Democrats stand.”
The Democrats see criminals as potential Democratic Party voters. They are actively courting the criminal element. They campaign for prisoners to vote and convicted felons to have their voting rights reinstated. They are the party of both the organized and the individual criminal. Should this be surprising?
crosspatch on April 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I have this awful image of Detroit’s UAW running airline security…
Guys in the most obnoxiously stereotyped jihadi getup walking through a metal detector with an RPG7, bomb belts and AKs and the detector beeping angrily, someone in line says ‘HEY, aren’t you gonna stop ‘em?’ to the security guy, who’s slouched in a chair. ‘Psssh, hell no, I’m on union break…’ as he picks a glob of wax out of his ear to inspect.
Bad Candy on April 2, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Slublog……totally agree….no fight….
Come on! What do they have to loose? The opposition (and many so called friends) are slinging stuff right and left…
George you need to go to the podium and tell em….’Ya’ll are a bunch of id-gits’ and then keep hammering them. Let the press run you banging on the heads of these SOBs. Is it going to hurt America’s image? Is it going to hurt your image?…..Come on George…..
Limerick on April 2, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Well it would work to increase their wages and benefits, which in turn would make the job more desirable. This would attract applicants who are more intelligent and better educated and who would have more motivation to to their job to the best of their abilities. So yes, more qualified and motivated security workers would indeed make us safer and make the system work better.
Well you forgot to mention that ones that were delivered to US troops by rival warlords looking for an easy way to get rid of their competition. But that’s not important, I, and many freedom-loving Americans like to believe that basic rights such as the right to a trial and habeas corpus extend beyond just American citizens. Call us naive, but we like to think being human, having a soul, being capable of rational thought should entitle you to these basic human rights. I really don’t see the big deal, if these prisoners are cut-and-dry terrorists it should take about 2 hours to give them a fair trial, convict them, and lock them up for life.
JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM
It would also make it more difficult to fire those who are not motivated and productive workers, which would not do much to make the system work better.
Slublog on April 2, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Ok, you’re naive. And a whole lot else.
Do you know what the pay structure is for non-unionized TSA workers? Have you ever seen union rules up close and personal? Do you know the comparable productivity of union vs non-union workers across the labor sector? If you can’t answer yes to all, buzz off because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Re habeus corpus, what part of the words “enemy combatant” and “citizen” do you not understand? What part of the word “war” do you not understand? Evidently, you understand no part of any of those words.
Citizenship is supposed to protect citizens, both from their own government and from external attack. That is the most fundamental function of citizenship. But in this country, thanks in large part to the machinations of feckless liberals and open borders fools, citizenship is more of a burden than a protection now. A citizen pays the taxes that the non-citizen gets to reap in welfare largesse. A citizen’s right to trial is put on the same level as a capture terrorist’s rights. That’s utterly wrong-headed, naive, foolish and dangerous. But you don’t care, because granting terrorists the same exact rights that you have–which they are actively trying to destroy–makes you feel good about yourself.
Fool.
Bryan on April 2, 2007 at 12:25 PM
American soldiers dont die to give their enemies U.S. citizenship.
infidel on April 2, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Tool.
infidel on April 2, 2007 at 12:29 PM
You really think that unionizing security would do that? REALLY?
REALLY REALLY?
BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!! *gasp* HAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!
I can destroy your argument quite easily. Two points, see: Detroit Auto Workers, American Teachers. You lose. Unions suck.
Bad Candy on April 2, 2007 at 12:30 PM
JaHerer22-
Good point about the uion job, except that the people who get their first may not be bright inteligent people, and once they are in they have no reason to want to improve. At the University I work at we are all state employees. The average worker here is not interested in much more then their paycheck. Which they will always get because they are almost impossible to fire. it’s a little differnet in the IT department (where I am) since we have slightly different rules then the other admin groups.
I liked your second point also. But… the people we are fighting do not believe as you do. If you were in their country and “detained” you would not have to worry about a trial. You would have your head removed shortly after the terrible beatings and possible “confession and conversion”. These people beleive in strength, they respect strength, and when they look at our fair and equitable justice system all they see is weakness and something they can exploit.
As enemy combatants they should be shot, per the Geneva convention. I would really like to see more trials, and those not convicted to be sent home. But those that are convicted should be shot and disposed of in such a way to be a warning to others.
Wyrd on April 2, 2007 at 12:34 PM
“JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM”
Okay, yeah you are naive. Do you think your system of appeasement works if it’s not reciprocal? I suggest you rent The Last Mohican. Pay attention to the scene where the Indians surround the British. The British line up all nice and civil like and by the “rules” and then promptly proceed to get butchered by the Indians who weren’t so nice and civil or willing to fight by British standards or rules.
One thing I am confident about, Americans or at lest the non-liberal half will never succumb. We’ll die fighting!
CCRWM on April 2, 2007 at 12:34 PM
But will they allow the terrorists to unionize?
rw on April 2, 2007 at 12:36 PM
“Citizenship is supposed to protect citizens, both from their own government and from external attack. That is the most fundamental function of citizenship. But in this country, thanks in large part to the machinations of feckless liberals and open borders fools, citizenship is more of a burden than a protection now. A citizen pays the taxes that the non-citizen gets to reap in welfare largesse. A citizen’s right to trial is put on the same level as a capture terrorist’s rights. That’s utterly wrong-headed, naive, foolish and dangerous. But you don’t care, because granting terrorists the same exact rights that you have–which they are actively trying to destroy–makes you feel good about yourself.
Fool.
Bryan on April 2, 2007 at 12:25 PM”
Amen!
CCRWM on April 2, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Did JaHerer22 state that unionizing TSA workers will increase pay and thus provide more motivated and intelligent workers.
For my counterargument to this, I say look only at the unionized California Department of Motor Vehicle’s associate.
Moron.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM
According the the U.S. Department of Labor:
‘In 2006, 12.0 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.5 percent a year earlier.’
Seems like the war on terror is working.
Back on topic…….
It is going to happen here. It already has happened back in the ME. One of these ‘poor’ imprisoned terrorists is going to get a bleeding-heart discharge, then turn around and wipe out a couple of hundred civilians on main-street USA.
I guarantee I won’t have a bleeding-heart for the lib that gave him the opportunity.
Limerick on April 2, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I’ll respond to your comments because you seem to be the only one actually concerned with the issues rather than calling me names and shouting rhetoric.
Of course they don’t believe as I do. Of course if I was captured in their country I would never see a courtroom and would probably be executed or worse immediately. But that’s why we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys. Have we forgotten that? If we stoop to their level and play by their rules we lose our moral authority and tear down any distinction of us being noble warriors for justice and them being evil, bloodthirsty thugs and become just a bunch of barbarians killing each other because we’ve got nothing better to do.
JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Then they’re probably not gonna like this.
amerpundit on April 2, 2007 at 12:56 PM
It isn’t just the timeline….it is the training/rest standards. Impossible goal to meet so troops would never be deployed. Obama is running a smoke screen on that one.
Limerick on April 2, 2007 at 12:59 PM
I guess there’s no need for military police or rent-a-cops then either.
robblefarian on April 2, 2007 at 12:59 PM
That is the democrats only concern: to attack President Bush as often and as publicly as possible. The democrats are not concerned with the “rights” of the terrorists, they are not concerned with improving security at airports, they are not concerned with preventing terrorist attacks here in America and abroad; they are only concerned with fighting a political war with this administration in an attempt to regain control of the White House in 2009.
RedinBlueCounty on April 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM
What happens when one these guys gets acquitted, goes off to plot, and succeeds in killing hundreds (if not thousands) of people with a bomb or by some other means? What do you say then? Or is that just the price we pay for giving them the same rights as our citizens? Would you feel the same way if it were your family and/or friends that were slaughtered by that guy – knowing full well this could have been prevented??
Rick on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I don’t know about anyone else, but being the good guy is not my goal in life. See their collective barbarism and raise it a notch. That’s the only thing they understand. We can apologize to France later. After the terrorists are piled up like cord wood.
pistolero on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Then follow the appropriate law to the letter, specifically, determine if they are lawful or unlawful combatants. If the determination that they are a lawful combatant, i.e. they wear a uniform, imprison them for the duration of hostilities. If the determination is that they are unlawful combatants, they should be immediately shot. If they are neither of these, they should be returned to their country of capture.
None of the people in question are common criminals, nor should they be treated as such.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM
The “stoop to their level” argument is the one that the left always brings out. We have rules of engagement, if the other side wishes to dispense with those rules, than they have established the rules and we fight for survival using their rules. Our guidlines are exactly that, guidlines that are honorable, but if they want to take it to another level, than so be it. I don’t believe in killing either, but rape my woman or child…and you die.
That is why Ghandi was such a fool, he wanted the British to lay down their arms, and surrender to the Germans, he wanted the Jews to allow themselves to be taken to the chambers with no resistance. He was using the same argument.
Because we are inheritly good, we can cross that line and cross back…these swines live “across” the line. If you believe in America, than you know we can do what is necessary, and still retain our greatness.
right2bright on April 2, 2007 at 1:15 PM
So granting them all the rights of citizens is the only way to avoid “stooping to their level and playing by their rules” now? We should of course not wage war on them at all, anywhere, no matter what they do then, right? Because it would just be stooping to their level and playing by their rules.
Foolish. Naive. Dangerous.
If that’s all the confidence we have in ourselves and the reasons we should win, then we’re doomed.
Bryan on April 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM
This today from the SCOTUS:
Entelechy on April 2, 2007 at 1:24 PM
From the KOS/MM thread, still up today:
JaHerer22, please reconcile these two quotes. If you can put as much verve and energy of your “freedom-loving” into the latter, then I might listen to you and yours…
Entelechy on April 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Just so you can relish the moment a little more,
I saw the “Last Mimzy” over the weekend, started out as a great kids movie, right up until the Dept of Homeland Security raided the kids home citing the Patriot act as their justification for doing so.. its rampant its like a virus and theres no end in sight.. Im all for dividing the landscape into two sections and building a wall to keep these leftist morons out.
Viper1 on April 2, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I have often wondered this. Why would the SOH be hopnobing with Syria and wanting to talk to Iran. Is she ignorant? I only wished they would have made her wear a burka and serve the men tea.
bubbadog89 on April 2, 2007 at 1:54 PM
We are better then the terrorist. Period. We have not stooped to their level,, even with Gitmo. The prisoners their are treated far better then the Terrorists prisoners. Even whena few national guards humiliated the prisoners at Abu Ghariab they were treated better then say… Daniel Pearl.
Our societies are diametricaly oppsoed. We can not stoop to their level. They can only rise to ours. But until they do then their can be no quarter from us. These unlawfull combatants flout international law into our faces. They kill, maim, and butcher indiscriminatly. The law is clear. They should be tired, and if found guilty then they should be shot. but they should not be tried as American citizens, nor should they be tried under our laws. Their are international laws for a reason.
Their only rule is to kill all that oppose them, and to die a glorious death. Our rules are a bit superior then that.
Wyrd on April 2, 2007 at 2:06 PM
May unions die a swift death.
omnipotent on April 2, 2007 at 2:10 PM
You’re completely misrepresenting everything I’m saying and bastardizing my entire argument. Since you don’t seem to be able to read and comprehend sentences very well, I’ll try to lay things out for you with bullet points:
–Terrorists or any other foreigner should not be afforded the privileges of an American citizen
–These privileges include but are not limited to the right to vote, the right to enter and leave at will, etc.
–Some basic human rights extend beyond artificial man-made borders and should be granted to all people based simply on the fact that they are human.
–These rights include but are not limited to the right not to be murdered, raped, enslaved, etc. We can all agree (I hope) that murder is unacceptable, regardless of the nationally of the victim.
–I would include the right of habeas corpus and the right to a jury trial in the category of basic human rights to be granted all persons regardless of nationality. While this is clearly not as cut and dry as say the right not to be enslaved, I believe these are reasonable expectations.
–This has nothing to do with cheapening citizenship or giving away sovergnity; in fact it has nothing to do with citizenship whatsoever. It’s all about treating people with respect and dignity regardless of how they would treat you.
–I know you’ve read the Bible Bryan, I’m sure you’ve heard of the Golden Rule…treat others as you wish to be treated…not how they treat you…as you wish to be treated. If I was ever accused of a crime by this country or another I would certainly wish to be granted habeas corpus and a trial by jury; therefore I believe in granting those rights to others, regardless of what they have done or what I think of them.
JaHerer22 on April 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Ok JaHerer, we should give them a speedy and fair trial.
Note: We can’t exactly let POW’s go in a time of war to continue to attack our troops… hopefully we can agree on that. Oh, and we aren’t sure when the war will be over.
SO, possible sentencing. Life in Prison. Death. Is there another option I’ve missed that avoids having them go back home at kill our troops? Hmm, not really.
How odd that you’d want to force sentencing before we could possibly let them go back to their home countries; thereby forcing us to more extreme measures than treating them as POW’s and simply holding them until the cessation of the war.
Basically you’ve just decided that none of them can get a sentence less than life in prison if it seems likely they’d fight against U.S. Soldiers should they be realeased… especially as I’ve never heard of a variable sentencing policy (like you can be released 2 years after the person you mugged dies, or some such).
Why do you hate them so much that you aren’t willing to treat them like POW’s and let them go home once the war is done? Heck, we didn’t even do that to most of the Japanese and Germans we captured during WW2…
gekkobear on April 2, 2007 at 3:19 PM
And that’s where you’re dangerously wrong. SCOTUS just today decided against your position, as it has consistently ruled since the republic’s founding. A person’s status before the law and Constitution are relevant to their disposition in the courts. The Gitmo detainees aren’t merely criminals–they’re enemy combatants. That’s a whole different legal category. They can legally be held until the cessation of hostilities, without trial, so that they never enter combat against us again. That’s the point of holding them–not to try them, but to keep them from re-entering the war. We can try them in military tribunals since their acts also constitute crimes against our people, and since they are enemy combatants, not citizens, and not mere criminals. That has been the law for generations. Were we wrong to try Nazi saboteurs via military tribunals during WWII? Are we wrong now to have a different legal system for the military then the one we have for civilians? You’re attempting to re-write precedent to satisfy your need to feel good. Read some history. Learn some precedent. Bring a single fact to the table, for once in your life.
Granting them a right to trial in civilian courts gives them more or less the same rights you would have if you got picked up for petty theft. Is that what you want? That’s what you’re giving them.
Bryan on April 2, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Posting after JaHerer22’s latest, I’d like to say, “DAMN, YOU ROCK, Entelechy”.
tormod on April 2, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Can I just say that Bryan ROCKS? I hope Jaherer22 is calling the dentist to schedule an appointment to replace his teeth after the blows Bryan just gave him…
As for a “Christian POV”–as I recall, Christians believe they will be judged by a King, or Christ. Not by a jury. And if I was tried by a jury in Iran, I’d be even MORE scared.
Vanceone on April 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Don’t get too rough on JeHerer guys. He seems to basicly be saying that their are conditions of common decency which we, as Americans, should be able to exhibit. he is right too. Americans are generally more free, more understanding, and have a better grasp of the nuances of the world then most of the other countries. In some ways that puts us on a moral high ground. The issue arises (as I see it) is that he goes to far. That may just be ignorance on his part. Arguing from a position of common decency is not wrong, but it does narrow ones view so they may miss pertinate facts. I do believe Bryan has pointed those facts out quite nicely.
In regards to gitmo, we have fullfilled our obligations per the Geneva conventions. Other then trying and shooting them that is. We have actually been more then understanding in letting them live. They are not POW’s, since they were not wearing the uniform of their country when they fought. They are provacateurs, spies, and terrorist.
Wyrd on April 2, 2007 at 4:07 PM
But they are hardly that – they would rape, enslave and/or murder you/me in a heartbeat.
We are superior JaHerer22 – a la Geneva we could have lined them up and shot them all, but didn’t. Was already mentioned by someone, above.
Entelechy on April 2, 2007 at 4:36 PM
First payoff: Unions.
Second payoff: Terrorists.
restore the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects
I’d say the democrats are giving us plenty of ammo to use in the ‘08 elections. Who in their right mind would vote for people who value votes and the rights of terrorists over their own country?
darwin on April 2, 2007 at 4:38 PM
“We’re better than that” is not an ethos, its an epitaph.
Fatal on April 2, 2007 at 6:55 PM
igen, Entelechy, you do rock, but I can’t believe you & other non-idiots & non a++holes took the time to bother with JaherrDipshit, who is one of the most obvious and dumbest trolls ever to troll along this or any other blog
such an easy target; if only all libs were that totally clueless
Janos Hunyadi on April 3, 2007 at 3:21 AM
You have no clue how the Federal Unionized Government hires people. They always hire people that are no threat to the people that run the bureaucracy. In other words the lowest common denominator. They also use social programs to staff the ranks like welfare queens instead of highly educated applicants. The use racial quotas and set asides. Nepotism and political cronyism rules the day.
That is why is a bad thing to allow public unions in Security Matters. The TSA is joke. You can virtually walk through the metal detectors with a weapon right now and the clueless ex welfare recipient that was hired by the Union does not have a clue.They have failed every security test since they started the TSA under Homeland Security.
That is why nail clippers are considered a security threat while they refuse to use racial profiling.
Think about it the next time they tell you to take your shoes off.
Yes JaHerer22, you are naive.
ScottyDog on April 3, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Comment pages: