Saturday, January 30, 2010

OUCH! 'RINO' Susan Collins slams Obama administration on EunuchBomber handling

HOTAIR- Normally, most conservatives would groan at hearing that the Republican response to Barack Obama’s weekly presidential address would be coming from Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). In this case, though, it’s a smart move. If Jim DeMint or Mike Pence had delivered the speech you’ll watch below, it still would have been a fine speech — but we already know where conservatives stand on counterterrorism. However, when a moderate like Collins calls the handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “irresponsible,” “dangerous,” and “inconceivable,” that has a broader political impact. When Collins says that “Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such,” and calls the current Obama policies a “charade,” that will make it more difficult for people to write it off as knee-jerk, right-wing contempt for Obama instead of his policies:


  1. Conservatives? Collins idiotically argues the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens. The Supreme Court made explicit since 1886 (Yick Wo v. Hopkins) that it does. The 4 dissents in Boumediene in 2008 didn't even argue the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens -- the issue in that case was whether Gitmo is within the U.S., not whether the detainees there would have been protected by the Constitution if they'd been held in the U.S. And the Court held that even in Gitmo they are entitled to constitutional protections. Do you think all the non-citizens in the U.S. every day can be picked up, locked up, and tortured merely because they are non-citizens. No, they have to have Miranda rights read to them too. The Constitution limits GOVERNMENTAL power -- except with respect to matters which specify their limitation to "citizens" (like voting rights) there's no sense at all in supposing those limitations on governmental power are inapplicable to persons in general. "Person" and "citizen" have entirely different meanings under the constitution.

    What's so entirely shocking (except to the extent we're this remarkable country with remarkable rights that stands as a beacon of freedom to the world) about reading Miranda rights to a guy who stuffs explosives in his underwear? We read Miranda rights to Tim McVeigh and no one screamed we were subjecting ourselves to unacceptable dangers.

    "Conservatives"? What are you conserving? It isn't the Constitution.

  2. I totally disagree. Timothy McVeigh was a United States citizen and resident and deserves the rights by the US constitution.

    What you libertarians are missing...or if you are a retarded that the Christmas bomber was NOT a US Citizen.

    There's a difference between McVeigh bombing a federal building as an angry US Citizen protesting the government- and he's a scumbag for doing so, murdering innocent civilians including babies in the process AND a foreign terrorist from another country trying to blow up a plane in an attempted murder of US Citizens on our soil or waters.

    Personally, Timothy McVeigh in my opinion should of been shot in the head instantly when he was convicted.

    The foreign terrorists should NOT receive US citizen constitutional rights EVEN IF they are ON OUR SOIL. They are only ON OUR SOIL to do harm and the founding fathers wouldn't of approved of that. Am I wrong? I don't think so...

    Andrew Napalotano is pretty intelligent and he seems a master of the constituion as does Mike Church. I will agree with them in whatever their opinion is because I believe they have proved to be the most brilliant scholars of the Constitution.

  3. Shawn -- sorry. But wishing it so doesn't make it so. Those constitutional rights apply to non-citizens too. Even Scalia, Thomas, and Alito think so.