Please, please don't offend the terrorists
Jay over at Stop The ACLU posted a very interesting story last night about the Ohio Supreme Court ruling in favor of would-be-terrorists. Here's the skinny...| Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism. |
In other words, the ACLU doesn't believe we have a right to define terrorists or terror supporters seeking legal council. Are you a member of Al Qaeda? No worries...that's not important when you stand trial for possession of those guided missiles. Here's more...
| "We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law." |
Why does the ACLU seem so concerned with the rights of would-be-terrorists but ignores our right of personal safety and a peaceful life?
And why does the ACLU and the left seem so concerned with offending terrorists?
I've been holding onto this article about Sen. Feingold faulting Bush's war language since Tuesday and see some striking similarities to the ACLU. Here we have a U.S. Senator pulling pre-WWII appeasement tactics for fear of offending terrorists.
| "We must avoid using misleading and offensive terms that link Islam with those who subvert this great religion or who distort its teachings to justify terrorist activities," Feingold said Tuesday in a speech to the Arab American Institute on Capitol Hill. |
Al Qaeda releases a new tape that says "America must convert to Islam, or else" but we can't link this to Islam. WHAT???
We had a guy run over a bunch of people in his SUV out here in SF one day. He's a Muslim who recently returned from Afghanistan. He gets out of his car after his rampage and proclaims "I'm a terrorist." The media called it a random act of rage from a troubled man having a mental breakdown.
I call it terrorism.
A guy walks into a Jewish Center in Seattle while chanting death to Israel. He shoots several women, killing one. The media called it a random act of rage from a troubled man having a mental breakdown.
I call it terrorism.
Virtually every car bomb, IED and suicide bomber in Iraq is tied to individuals who believe in Jihad. I don't call it someone mad because we liberated their nation. I call it Islamic terrorism.
Running from a term or title because it might offend someone will never solve the problems of the world. Nor will appeasing a group of ruthless killers dedicated to the destruction of the west because it might make them angry. This is the same lunacy I talked about after our little act of terror here in SF and it's the same thing when Rumsfeld talked about terrorists presenting a new type of fascism.
A group of radical Muslims preaching Islam as they hack off heads and blow themselves up are terrorists. When they, their leadership and leaders of their nations demand global Islam and death to all others, they are Islamic fascists. This certainly doesn't apply to all Muslims, but it definitely applies to those we fight in this war on terror.