If you want to compare two things situations which really have nothing to do with one another, I guess you could say that it was successive presidential administrations that failed to protect their rights by not heeding warnings about what may have been preventable terrorist attacks against the United States.
But really, one thing has to do with the other.
Because 2000+ people were killed by terrorists on 9/11, that now means that the government can accuse anyone they wish of being a terrorist, and all of those accused now have no rights?
The people killed on 9/11 were not suspected criminals who need to have their rights protected, as all of us do.
By that logic, we might as well deny
all accused of crimes in which there are victims their rights.
Someone is accused of burglary?
The accused burglar should be denied his rights. After all, who was protecting the rights of the person whose home was burgled.
An accused rapist?
Let's deny him his rights, because "Who was protecting the rights of the rape victim"?
A suspected mugger?
No rights for him either. Who was protecting the rights of his victim?
Originally posted by The Iceman:
I'm greatly disappointed by the White House on this issue.
Why?
What is the problem with these people getting a fair trial?
Besides, didn't you notice where the government admitted that most of those being held are not terrorists and do not pose a threat to the U.S. after all?
