That’s funny. Because the only time in recent history I remember anyone wanting to actually ammend or re-draft the Constitution was Bush and the Reoublicans in 2004 to restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex. And Huckabee even wants to make the Constitution more God-like. “”[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.” [from a 2008 speech].

Yes, the obsession with Beck on this site, while ignoring the others (except the occasional thread like the Olbermann three finger salute) as they continue to work overtime to protect HIMSELF teh One, is exactly the point I was making.

That citation of Chris Matthews’ fatuous question was made to illustrate the way the MSM has by-and-large gone into COA (Cover Obama’s A) mode by pretending the preponderance of the evidence doesn’t suggest Hasan was motivated by a jihadist mindset, instead asserting Hasan “snapped” or “cracked” under pressure the Army should have recognized. Thrill-up-my-leg’s question was designed to mitigate the logical presumption about Hasan as evidence continued to pour in about his contacts with Muslim radicals and shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he strafed unarmed people with bullets.

From TfT;
Well Glynnis, at least he didn’t ask: “Is talking to Al Qaeda a crime????” like Matthews did; a story that I don’t believe you reported on this board (at least that I can recall).

And I believe that I, along with the FBI have established, it isn’t a crime

As I said before, as Islamists take advantage of simple, frivolous freedoms in order to sow fear and chaos, life and the law must adapt to protect the public. ACLU-types (like Sheik Omar’s terrorist -assisting lawyer Lynne Stewart and D.C. superlawyer Jonathan Turley) take it upon themselves to prevent that from happening, and endanger us all.

If the alternative is the liberal approach–”it means anything we say because it’s a living, breathing document and we can distort it to mean anything we want”–I’ll take it.

Here’s some food for thought: if the current Democrat congress were to re-draft the Constitution, how many pages do you think it would be? If just a health care bill is a two foot stack of paper, then the entire U.S. Constitution would have to be…

Wow. That’s a lot of crayons.

As for your example of a soldier contacting the enemy (which is sort of this case): If the soldier gives secrets, they should be tried and convicted of the crime. Otherwise, it may be against Army regulations, but it’s probably not a crime.

Does that mean you have no problem with an officer in the Army contacting the enemy of his own personal accord? He was found to be posting on extremist web sites, had contacts that were on FBI Watch lists, he was reprimanded numerous times for trying to convert patients he counseled to Islam, he declared opposition to the wars.

We should keep an eye on this guy, he might do something anti-American soon.

Under Bush’s Executive Order, the Secretary of State can add a terrorist group to the watch list in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury. This allows the government to seize the group’s assets and it makes it illegal to do business or provide support to the group, but there’s a defined process for a group to be named and they can appeal their designation in court.

Again, though I agree that a suspicious contact should raise suspicions, I’d have a real problem with it becoming illegal for an American citizen to contact anyone, let alone another American. (The guy in question may have renounced his citizenship or something, but he was reportedly born in New Mexico and had lived in several states)

And you’d think that someone who follows Glenn Beck would feel the same.

He is entitled to his opinion and in this instance, I happen to agree with much of what he said.

Yeah, Magister. We don’t want those “lower level bureaucrats in the FBI” to do something like, y’know, actually recommend watching a rogue Muslim soldier like a hawk after refusing to do so once wound up getting 13 people killed and over 30 more wounded.

Do your research, Mag: Two weeks before 9/11, an FBI agent tracking bin Laden and Al Qaeda was frustrated that he was prevented by the “wall” from getting needed information about two future hijackers. In an email to superiors, he wrote: “Whatever has happened to this–someday someone will die–and wall or not–the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.”

But I guess when that concerned agent made reference to “the public,” Mag, he wasn’t including glib blog posters who treat such massacres as fodder for Olsen twin jokes.

@TfT: I’m not sure that I understand the meme that’s been going around, but I don’t believe contacting Al Qaeda (if such a thing was possible) is a crime.

Uh huh. Neither was concealing plastic explosives in your shoe. But as Islamists become more determined to use simple, frivolous freedoms (such as walking onto a jet without having to remove your shoes) to sow death and chaos, life and the law must adapt.

You’re right, Magister. You don’t understand.

Otherwise tomorrow, some lower level bureaucrat in the FBI might arbitrarily decide to start arresting everyone who comes in contact with an Olsen twin or who shopped at Ace Hardware on Wednesday.

“Becknut’s crayon concept of the Constitution and what America is about is what appeals to the low intellect and people who can be fooled all the time. What galls me is the simplistic approach that says kill all the muslims and let god sort it out. We have a enemy, a small minority of muslims, and Becknut and that other idiot, Limbaugh, want to start another Crusades and increase the size of our enemy by 100 fold by declaring war on ALL muslims. Stuck on stupid as applied to Becknut and company doesn’t begin to describe their lunacy.”

It’s amazing that Bill — or should I say, Mr. Adkins, Esq. — would use his calling card as his icon when his comment reveals that despite his ability to pass a bar somewhere in America, he can’t be counted on to do research before he opines. I’m just a layman, but I always thought that was important for lawyers to do well.

FACT: Neither Beck nor Limbaugh has ever said anything that comes close to “kill all the muslims and let god sort it out” or “declar[e] war on ALL muslims.” Counselor Adkins’ alleging this is their outlook out of his ignorance is one thing, but it’s reasonable to presume that Adkins at least watched the video clip provided in the thread. Beck made no such allusion in the video, but nevertheless that’s what Adkins took away from it.

IMHO, that’s intellectually lazy, not a quality you want in an attorney. Who’s the “simplistic” one? Not Beck.

You might want to try not posting for a few weeks… or months. See if that clears up your stupidity. It probably won’t… but it couldn’t hurt. Ready, set, go!

m says:
November 11, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Somehow I doubt that. Of course, Pres Obama would have judged him differently. Remember the Cambridge incident? Ah yes… Obama was all too eager to “not know all the facts,” but state that he thought the police acted “stupidly.” However, in this case… mmmmmm… nope, can’t state the obvious… gotta be real careful. Give it a year or two, let the investigators make a decision, then we can collectively say, “DUUUUUUH.”

Out of curiosity… where did you stand on the O’Reilly/Tiller murder? Was that O’Reilly’s fault? Were you sure O’Reilly inspired the guy? Or were you / are you “waiting for all the facts?”

Give us the facts, Ted..

Since when? Read his PowerPoint on the Washington Post Website. Fundamentalist Mulsims believe in radical social principles (total control, no human-rights) and a total Islmamic-law government. They are more closely related to the far-left then anything on the right.

The “luxury” of political correctness has cost 14 lives and injured almost 40 more at Ft. Hood.