PDA

View Full Version : Terrorism: Domestic and Foreign



cotts135
06-02-2009, 06:28 AM
This was an interesting article I came across and raised what I thought were some intriguing questions about terrorism.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/06/terrorism-domestic-and-foreign.html

The assassin who killed Dr. George Tiller at his church, murdered Tiller in order to keep him from performing therapeutic abortions for women. The murderer is one of a long line of religiously inspired radicals who have tried to shut down abortion providers through bombings and murders. They are not the mainstream of the pro-life movement; they are a fringe sect who are not content to protest abortion or even to engage in non-violent civil disobedience. Instead, they believe that they are justified in bombings and killings to prevent great evils that they regard as contrary to God's fundamental law.

Using violence-- like bombings and murders-- to intimidate people is terrorism. It is so in common language, it is so defined in U.S. law. The terrorist in this case and in previous abortion clinic bombings and murders are, as far as I am aware, not foreigners. They do not have Arabic or Islamic names. They are American and they live in the United States. However, just like Islamist terrorism, this terrorism is driven by fanatical religious belief. Many religiously inspired terrorists live in other countries; some, however, (who include both Christians and Muslims among their number) live in the United States and are U.S. citizens or resident aliens.

If bombings of abortion clinics and murders of abortion providers are acts of terrorism, should we treat the problem of terrorism that they present the way we treat the problem of terrorism from Al Qaeda and other groups? That is, should Scott Roeder, who is currently suspected of being Dr. Tiller's murderer, be treated the way we would treat a suspected terrorist who we believe may have ties to Al Qaeda? Should we treat him like Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was apprehended at O'Hare airport and detained in a military prison in the United States for several years? (That is, until the government transferred him to the criminal process in order to avoid judicial review of his detention.)

In particular, consider the following questions:

(1) Should the United States be able to hold Roeder without trial in order to prevent him from returning to society to kill more abortion providers? If we believe that Roeder and other domestic terrorists will plan further attacks on abortion providers and abortion clinics if we let them free, can we subject them to indefinite detention?

(2) The Obama Administration is currently considering a national security court to make decisions about the detention of suspected terrorists, with the power to order continued preventive detention. Should this court be able to hear cases involving U.S. citizens, whether they are Muslim or Christian?

(3) The U.S. government has argued that at least some terrorists should not be tried through the criminal process with its various Bill of Rights protections but instead can and should be tried through military commissions, where the standards of proof and various procedural protections are lowered. If Roeder is a domestic terrorist, can the U.S. government subject him to trial by a military commission instead of a criminal prosecution? Although the current version of the 2006 Military Commission Act does not bestow jurisdiction to try citizens, could we or should we amend it to include citizens who we believe are likely to commit or have committed terrorist acts?

(4) One of the most important reasons for detaining terrorists (suspected or otherwise) is to obtain information about future terrorist attacks that may save lives and prevent future bombings. To procure this information, can the government dispense with the usual constitutional and legal safeguards against coercive interrogation? Should it be able to subject Roeder to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding and other methods, to determine whether Roeder knows of any other persons who are likely to commit violence against abortion clinics or against abortion providers in the future? Would your answer change if you believed that an attack on an abortion provider or a bombing of an abortion clinic was imminent?

(5) Terrorists and terrorist organizations need money and resources to operate effectively. Often the only way to stop them is to dry up their sources of financial and logistical support. Can the U.S. government freeze the assets of pro-life organizations and make it illegal to contribute money to a pro-life charity that it believes might funnel money or provide material support to persons like Roeder or to organizations that practice violence against abortion providers? Can the government arrest, detain, and seize the property of anti-abortion activists who helped Roeder in any way in the months leading up to his crime, for example by giving him rides or allowing him to stay in their homes?

My assumption is that the government may not do any of these things. Roeder lives in the United States. He should be treated according to the ordinary criminal process. We should not be able to strip him of his rights simply by calling him a suspected terrorist, and it should make no difference whether he is a Muslim or a Christian, whether he is white or brown. And pro-life organizations, like Muslim charities, have rights of freedom of association that governments should protect lest we effectively criminalize political association and belief in the name of national security.

The difficulty is that our national deliberations on terrorism have largely proceeded on the assumption that all terrorists are non-Americans and/or non-Christians who live in or come from distant lands. They are not part of the American community, they are not "people like us" and therefore do not deserve the rights and protections of "people like us." We can detain them indefinitely, and even subject them to interrogation procedures that we would never apply to "real Americans."

But terrorism is a tactic, not a religion, an ethnicity or a nationality. There are, and always have been, American terrorists, including white and Christian terrorists. We have tended to obscure these facts in our debates, engaging in a sort of collective amnesia about domestic terrorism. We have done this even though, prior to 9/11, the country's attention was riveted for months by the Oklahoma City bombing, planned and carried out by homegrown terrorists who looked nothing like the bogeymen we associate with Al Qaeda.

Whenever we contemplate national security courts, or preventive detention, or military commissions, or enhanced interrogation techniques, or any of the various devices that have become characteristic of the War on Terror, we should always stop to ask whether we would apply those techniques and devices to domestic terrorists born and raised in the United States with white skin, Christian beliefs and Christian names. That is because Dr. Tiller's assassin is not the last domestic terrorist claiming to act in God's name. There will be more.

Matt McKenzie
06-02-2009, 07:44 AM
Very thought-provoking questions, but in this particular case, the man who killed the doctor in church is simply a murderer, not a terrorist (in my opinion). The same applies to the Muslim who killed one soldier and wounded another at the recruiting station in Arkansas Monday. Murderer, not terrorist. Two very clear-cut cases of murder that are easily prosecuted and sentenced. Motive not an issue in either case as I see it.
The Jose Padilla case, on the other hand, is worth discussing as it is not nearly as clear cut.

road kill
06-02-2009, 07:50 AM
Aren't the Muslim / AlQuada / Taliban terrorists talked about in the article captured on the battle field?
Are you then equating abortion clinics as battle fields?

In this case all are "idealogues" acting on engrained emotion, but not equals in court.

just sayin'

JDogger
06-02-2009, 08:27 AM
Terrorist website?

http://www.armyofgod.com/


If it walks like a duck.

YardleyLabs
06-02-2009, 08:32 AM
Terrorist website?

http://www.armyofgod.com/


If it walks like a duck.

Yes, And like others, protected by the First Amendment no matter how idiotic and immoral its message.

Matt McKenzie
06-02-2009, 08:36 AM
Agree with idiotic and protected. But I suspect that it and many like it are closely monitored.

cotts135
06-02-2009, 09:04 AM
Very thought-provoking questions, but in this particular case, the man who killed the doctor in church is simply a murderer, not a terrorist (in my opinion). The same applies to the Muslim who killed one soldier and wounded another at the recruiting station in Arkansas Monday. Murderer, not terrorist. Two very clear-cut cases of murder that are easily prosecuted and sentenced. Motive not an issue in either case as I see it.
The Jose Padilla case, on the other hand, is worth discussing as it is not nearly as clear cut.
Absolutely agree with you on this. This nut case is not a terrorist, nor is the women who accosted stewardesses and was ill behaved on a domestic flight a terrorist. Tim McVeigh............ terrorist. I just think this shows the danger of an overly broad definition of terrorism our government has come to define.

Bob Gutermuth
06-02-2009, 09:36 AM
Whether or not you define the killing of Tiller as terrorism, its rather clear that his alleged killer is a one trick pony. He is in custody and will likely get either life or the chair. Osama and his AG won't be turning this guy lose to perpetrate anymore violence.

Matt McKenzie
06-02-2009, 03:31 PM
I just saw a piece on CNN taking the terrorism slant on both of these killings and discussing if the perps were "goaded into action" by talk radio on one side and radical Islam on the other. What a pile of horse squeeze! Just like vidoe games caused the Columbine massacre. Each day we move further and further from the idea of personal responsibility and accountability.

Bob Gutermuth
06-02-2009, 03:54 PM
What would you expect from the Communist News Network?

twall
06-02-2009, 04:52 PM
It is kind of like the definition of porn, I know it when I see it. I think issues like what the definition of terrorism/terrorists should be highlights what a great job the authors of our constitution did. It has stood a long time with relatively few modifications.

Tom

Marvin S
06-02-2009, 05:41 PM
To the ******** from PETA we are terrorists for our harvest of wildlife!

Ted Bundy murdered 23 young ladies, most of them normal american girls like U students & people who held real jobs. Ted was a campaign volunteer on Gov-Sen Dan Evans campaigns. Does that make Gov-Sen Dan Evans a leader of terrorism?

The POTUS would know what a domestic terrorist is, he hung around some guy named Ayers for quite a while.

It does not surprise me that such an article would pique the interest of a confirmed lefty. It shows how far their mindset is from normal. ;-)

I know a very nice lady who was a leader in the Anti Abortion movement. She was taken out by those who disagreed. Were they correct, was she correct? No one will ever know as the debate was stymied in a court of law & she was made responsible for the actions of a few who used other than peaceful methods. Please see the reference to Dan Evans above.

What happens is laws made to combat this sort of stuff get misused, so they in effect really don't work?

A Murderer is a Murderer.

cotts135
06-03-2009, 09:13 AM
To the ******** from PETA we are terrorists for our harvest of wildlife!

Ted Bundy murdered 23 young ladies, most of them normal american girls like U students & people who held real jobs. Ted was a campaign volunteer on Gov-Sen Dan Evans campaigns. Does that make Gov-Sen Dan Evans a leader of terrorism?

The POTUS would know what a domestic terrorist is, he hung around some guy named Ayers for quite a while.

It does not surprise me that such an article would pique the interest of a confirmed lefty. It shows how far their mindset is from normal. ;-)

I know a very nice lady who was a leader in the Anti Abortion movement. She was taken out by those who disagreed. Were they correct, was she correct? No one will ever know as the debate was stymied in a court of law & she was made responsible for the actions of a few who used other than peaceful methods. Please see the reference to Dan Evans above.

What happens is laws made to combat this sort of stuff get misused, so they in effect really don't work?

A Murderer is a Murderer.

I am not really sure what your trying to get at with this post. It is kinda hard to follow and I don't think it is to unreasonable to believe, that since you are the one that wrote this, it would be your mindset that should come into question.
If you think that it is wrong to ponder and question what might be some of the unintended consequences of policies of our government and it is wrong to go deeper than a simplistic and cursory overview of these policies , then it is you with the problem.

badbullgator
06-03-2009, 11:02 AM
It does not surprise me that such an article would pique the interest of a confirmed lefty. It shows how far their mindset is from normal. ;-)





Marvin
I think Cotts was looking to get a different reaction, one that had the conservatives here protesting treating this scumbag like a terrorist because he killed a late term abortion doctor. The lefties seem to think that the conservatives are just like them. OK for your side to do something but not for the other side to do itů.sorry Cotts, not the case

code3retrievers
06-03-2009, 02:19 PM
"But terrorism is a tactic, not a religion, an ethnicity or a nationality. There are, and always have been, American terrorists, including white and Christian terrorists. We have tended to obscure these facts in our debates, engaging in a sort of collective amnesia about domestic terrorism"

Don't worry about definitions. Obama will figure it all out for you. Remember one of his best friends "Bill Aryes" knows what terrorism is and I'm sure he can explain it to you.

Oh wait, he is now reformed and is a trusted advisor to our now president.

cotts135
06-03-2009, 02:23 PM
Marvin
I think Cotts was looking to get a different reaction, one that had the conservatives here protesting treating this scumbag like a terrorist because he killed a late term abortion doctor. The lefties seem to think that the conservatives are just like them. OK for your side to do something but not for the other side to do it….sorry Cotts, not the case


AAAAAAAAAAahhhhhhhhh I see your momma didn't raise a mind reader did she?

Actually I posted because I think the governments broad definition of a terrorist and terrorism is a dangerous and insidious law. I also thought that the lefts reaction to this was a bit overblown .(by calling it a terrorist act)

DSemple
06-03-2009, 04:42 PM
Whether or not you define the killing of Tiller as terrorism, its rather clear that his alleged killer is a one trick pony. He is in custody and will likely get either life or the chair. Osama and his AG won't be turning this guy lose to perpetrate anymore violence.

Off topic from the thread, but.....

They are talking like Tiller's murderer will be prosecuted under state charges and not federal charges.

If that is the case, I wouldn't be surprised if he walks.

I think a smart defense attorney could make a pretty good case (that would resonate with some members of the jury here in the Bible belt) that he is not guilty of murder for killing Tiller, because he didn't kill a human being.

Quid pro quo regards. ....Don

Franco
06-03-2009, 05:01 PM
They are talking like Tiller's murderer will be prosecuted under state charges and not federal charges.



The murderer will not walk. If the Feds want to get involved, they will find a way. Remember, the current administration pays no attention to the law.

Bob Gutermuth
06-03-2009, 05:03 PM
How come all this blather from the left about Tiller, but nnot one word of regret concerning the killing of those 2 young GIs at the recruiting center?

Marvin S
06-03-2009, 06:57 PM
But terrorism is a tactic, not a religion, an ethnicity or a nationality. There are, and always have been, American terrorists, including white and Christian terrorists. We have tended to obscure these facts in our debates, engaging in a sort of collective amnesia about domestic terrorism. We have done this even though, prior to 9/11, the country's attention was riveted for months by the Oklahoma City bombing, planned and carried out by homegrown terrorists who looked nothing like the bogeymen we associate with Al Qaeda.

The judge that drove the Aryan Nation into bankruptcy just retired. While I did not agree with those folks, I have an issue with Politically Correct Judicial activiism.

As for the Oklahoma City bombing, I believe it to have been done in retaliation for the US Government's actions at Waco. All that would have been required would have been cut the welfare to the wacko's many wives & they would have chosen a different lifestyle. But it was done by your side so it's apparently good by you.


If you think that it is wrong to ponder and question what might be some of the unintended consequences of policies of our government and it is wrong to go deeper than a simplistic and cursory overview of these policies , then it is you with the problem.

All events have consequences & can be misconstrued to suit one's needs.


If that is the case, I wouldn't be surprised if he walks.

I think a smart defense attorney could make a pretty good case (that would resonate with some members of the jury here in the Bible belt) that he is not guilty of murder for killing Tiller, because he didn't kill a human being.

Quid pro quo regards. ....Don

I truly would hope not - the doctor was performing what is legal under the law. That the other person chose not to follow the law would be cause for concern.

But it wouldn't surprise me also. I was in Tulsa when all the county commissioners around the state were being prosecuted for accepting kickbacks. Did they ever do any time in the slammer?

Martin
06-04-2009, 11:28 AM
How come all this blather from the left about Tiller, but nnot one word of regret concerning the killing of those 2 young GIs at the recruiting center?

The MURDERER that killed the one, and wounded the other GIs was arrained in court yesterday I heard on our local news. He pleaded not guilty then proceeded to tell the judge he went there to kill as many American military as he could. Explained his plan and everything. What a punk. Wish he would have gone to the Air Force base in Jacksonville and tried that. He would be with his precious allah and that would have saved us tons of money!

For the dude that shot the baby killer, he is a murderer. The baby killer doctor, is a murderer. It really does not take alot of sense to figure that out.
The doctor got his the shooter will get his and the punk GI killer will get his.

"If you wouldn't have been doing what you shouln't have been doing, you wouldn't be doing what your are doing right now!" My very smart 7TH grade teacher..

Regards

cotts135
06-05-2009, 05:22 AM
The judge that drove the Aryan Nation into bankruptcy just retired. While I did not agree with those folks, I have an issue with Politically Correct Judicial activiism.

As for the Oklahoma City bombing, I believe it to have been done in retaliation for the US Government's actions at Waco. All that would have been required would have been cut the welfare to the wacko's many wives & they would have chosen a different lifestyle. But it was done by your side so it's apparently good by you.



All events have consequences & can be misconstrued to suit one's needs.



I truly would hope not - the doctor was performing what is legal under the law. That the other person chose not to follow the law would be cause for concern.

But it wouldn't surprise me also. I was in Tulsa when all the county commissioners around the state were being prosecuted for accepting kickbacks. Did they ever do any time in the slammer?

I guess your saying that McVeigh was not a terrorist. If he had been a Muslim would have that changed anything?

By the way those are not my quotes.

Uncle Bill
06-05-2009, 12:48 PM
With all the 'concern' for how the killer-of-the-killer will be viewed and dealt with, there isn't a word about the killer and his church. Kansas has to be proud of this crowd.

About the only article I've seen that actually puts the entire fiasco into context was written by Ann Coulter. I know how she violates the statists sensibilities, TS. It doesn't come close to how my sensibilities are violated on a daily basis by the writings of the socialists on this board.

UB

In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.

Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?


For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
http://im.afy11.net/images/08/42/8421418.gif (http://ad.afy11.net/ad?c=PgQBezMlJk6KQEeJtcTuCdWv904XPLA0o195DHWORcbbT rxPA3neo1wndIXYL3Ns6cRtN5wMHqfcqgR6ct8Odg==)





Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.

So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.

But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.

Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.

Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.

In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.

In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.

Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.

Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.

But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.

Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.

The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?

I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.

JDogger
06-05-2009, 06:33 PM
Yes, And like others, protected by the First Amendment no matter how idiotic and immoral its message.

Tell that to Hal Turner


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/hal-turner-talk-radio-hos_n_211377.html

kellycoonz
06-05-2009, 11:13 PM
Never look down on someone unless your helping them up.

code3retrievers
06-05-2009, 11:37 PM
Tell that to Hal Turner


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/hal-turner-talk-radio-hos_n_211377.html

Seems like another nut job like the left wing idiots giving out the home address of one of the lawyers that rendered an opinion on torture for the Bush administration. This has traditionally been a tactic of the moronic left.

YardleyLabs
06-06-2009, 04:37 AM
With all the 'concern' for how the killer-of-the-killer will be viewed and dealt with, there isn't a word about the killer and his church. Kansas has to be proud of this crowd.

About the only article I've seen that actually puts the entire fiasco into context was written by Ann Coulter. I know how she violates the statists sensibilities, TS. It doesn't come close to how my sensibilities are violated on a daily basis by the writings of the socialists on this board.

UB

In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.

Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?


For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
http://im.afy11.net/images/08/42/8421418.gif (http://ad.afy11.net/ad?c=PgQBezMlJk6KQEeJtcTuCdWv904XPLA0o195DHWORcbbT rxPA3neo1wndIXYL3Ns6cRtN5wMHqfcqgR6ct8Odg==)





Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.

So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.

But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.

Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.

Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.

In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.

In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.

Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.

Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.

But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.

Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.

The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?

I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.

Coulter always manages to write with firm conviction in part because she never concerns herself with the details of factual accuracy.

1. "According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject." -- Only 23% of Americans, according to the most recent Gallup poll, oppose abortion in all circumstances. 22% believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances. 2% have no opinion. Fortunately, the 53% in the middle tend to be more rational than those at either extreme, believing that abortion should be allowed in many circumstances, but not all. There is an overwhelming consensus that abortion should be legal where there is a significant probability that the baby will have a serious birth defect, or the mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy, or the pregnancy results from rape.

2. "In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers": It would be fun to see where that number came from. However, if someone asked me a question that said "Are you pro-life?", I too would answer in the affirmative. I am definitely pro-life. I also believe that the government should stay out of reproductive decisions of individuals including decisions about whether or not a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term.

3. "five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade. In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five." - The only good thing about this statement is that she omitted the traditional use of the word "murder" to describe the abortions. There is no comparison possible between those performing a completely legal medical procedure and the terroristic murders, fire bombings, harassment, etc., undertaken by fanatic opponents to prevent them from doing so. Before his death, Tiller operated one of only three remaining clinics in the country available to perform abortions after the 21st week in cases of major birth defects or threats to the mother's life. Before he was finally murdered in his church, Tiller had had numerous other attempts on his life as well as fire bombings and vandalism directed against his clinic.

I would write more but need to drive to Maryland for a hunt test. Dogs are so much more satisfying than this drivel.

bmontang
06-09-2009, 04:14 PM
Coulter always manages to write with firm conviction in part because she never concerns herself with the details of factual accuracy.

1. "According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject." -- Only 23% of Americans, according to the most recent Gallup poll, oppose abortion in all circumstances. 22% believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances. 2% have no opinion. Fortunately, the 53% in the middle tend to be more rational than those at either extreme, believing that abortion should be allowed in many circumstances, but not all. There is an overwhelming consensus that abortion should be legal where there is a significant probability that the baby will have a serious birth defect, or the mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy, or the pregnancy results from rape.

2. "In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers": It would be fun to see where that number came from. However, if someone asked me a question that said "Are you pro-life?", I too would answer in the affirmative. I am definitely pro-life. I also believe that the government should stay out of reproductive decisions of individuals including decisions about whether or not a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term.

Ah yes, the old private decision argument. Slave holders had a very similar argument back in the day. The question that needs to be addressed is whether the act is denying someone their constitutiional rights? To start with the decision needs to me made as to when life begins. Without that answer this argument will never be resolved. With it answered we can then determine when the constitution protects that life. Right now we are trying to have it both ways and that will not work.


3. "five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade. In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five." - The only good thing about this statement is that she omitted the traditional use of the word "murder" to describe the abortions. There is no comparison possible between those performing a completely legal medical procedure and the terroristic murders, fire bombings, harassment, etc., undertaken by fanatic opponents to prevent them from doing so. Before his death, Tiller operated one of only three remaining clinics in the country available to perform abortions after the 21st week in cases of major birth defects or threats to the mother's life. Before he was finally murdered in his church, Tiller had had numerous other attempts on his life as well as fire bombings and vandalism directed against his clinic.

Unfortunately those threats included things that are not real life threatening situations. If a mother's life style and mental health were impuned or perceived to be impuned they were able to do an end around on this law. Tiller specialized in getting a second approval from another doc on a matter that was far outside the intent of the helth exception portion of the law.


I would write more but need to drive to Maryland for a hunt test. Dogs are so much more satisfying than this drivel.



See bold above.

YardleyLabs
06-09-2009, 04:57 PM
See bold above.
...

Ah yes, the old private decision argument. Slave holders had a very similar argument back in the day. The question that needs to be addressed is whether the act is denying someone their constitutiional rights? To start with the decision needs to me made as to when life begins. Without that answer this argument will never be resolved. With it answered we can then determine when the constitution protects that life. Right now we are trying to have it both ways and that will not work.

Actually, slaveholders based their claims on rights to property and their assertion that slaves were chattel, not humans. There is, in fact, a parallel between that and the abortion debate since those supporting a right to choose are arguing that fetuses that cannot survive outside of the womb are in fact not protected by our Constitution and laws in the same manner as humans that have been born. There is no precedent in our legal history for treating the unborn as if they had all the rights and protections of the born. Presumably either our laws or our Constitution could be amended to establish such a right. Unless that is done, however, such a claim has no legal standing. This is not the first time or the last where our laws do not conform to the religious beliefs of some with respect to morality. It is not the job of the law to enforce morality. The job of the law is to enforce the law.

If a law is ever passed that does establish a fetus as a person under the law, the consequences could be interesting. In particular, any pregnant drinking or smoking could reasonably be convicted of child abuse. Presumably, tax exemptions would begin at the moment of conception and census counts would need to be adjusted to count the unborn. Would a pregnant woman riding in the front seat of a car be in violation of child safety laws? What if she were driving? I wouldn't even want to think of what might happen to parents having sex during pregnancy....



Unfortunately those threats included things that are not real life threatening situations. If a mother's life style and mental health were impuned or perceived to be impuned they were able to do an end around on this law. Tiller specialized in getting a second approval from another doc on a matter that was far outside the intent of the helth exception portion of the law.

In an effort to close Tiller's clinic, the anti-choice AG in Kansas filed 19 separate charges against Tiller for subverting the State requirement for a second opinion. Tiller was found not guilty on every single charge. Had Tiller not been assassinated, it is reasonable to assume that the same AG would have continued to seek more ways to close down his operation as he promised to do in his campaign. For what it's worth, the charges filed against Tiller and ultimately rejected in trials were all misdemeanors.

Cody Covey
06-09-2009, 06:14 PM
I also believe that the government should stay out of reproductive decisions of individuals including decisions about whether or not a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term.
When she made the decision to have sex..she made the decision to reproduce. She made a choice now its time to become responsible for your decisions and not MURDER babies...murder used for dramatic effect only.

YardleyLabs
06-09-2009, 06:32 PM
When she made the decision to have sex..she made the decision to reproduce. She made a choice now its time to become responsible for your decisions and not MURDER babies...murder used for dramatic effect only.

Are you truly saying that every time you've had sex you made a decision to have a child? What about when your 15 year old daughter or son has sex? Is that a decision to have children? I think babies deserve a little more thought than goes into most decisions to have sex. I've had a little too much contact with what happens when babies are not a choice to try to make that the law of our land. We tried that. And I've also had a little too much contact with the results when women were forced to obtain abortions illegally.

I am a grandfather now. Happily, each of my children was a choice, and each of my grandchildren was a choice. However, my daughter's pregnancies almost killed her and she had to spend the last three months of her pregnancies in bed to protect herself and the babies. If she became pregnant again for whatever reason, it would be a difficult and dangerous decision to have the baby. If she proceeded, she could readily die. No government and certainly no holier than thou religious dogmatic has the right to tell her to take that risk. I will support her choice, no matter what it is and know that every option will be painful to everyone involved.

Cody Covey
06-09-2009, 06:39 PM
Are you truly saying that every time you've had sex you made a decision to have a child? What about when your 15 year old daughter or son has sex? Is that a decision to have children? I think babies deserve a little more thought than goes into most decisions to have sex. I've had a little too much contact with what happens when babies are not a choice to try to make that the law of our land. We tried that. And I've also had a little too much contact with the results when women were forced to obtain abortions illegally.Unless the parties involved are < 13 years old then yes you know what MAY happen if you choose to have sex. What you are saying is like someone robs a bank but doesn't think they are going to get caught, then gets caught but doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Babies do deserve more of a thought but why have to take any reponsibility for any action now that we have pills or long sticks to take care of it for us. I for one don't think babies should be just disposed of because we don't want to take care of them

Also I'm not in the camp that thinks that there are no abortions for any reasons if its rape or the mother is dying than i say that yes that should be left up to the mother or family. Other than that she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies.

YardleyLabs
06-09-2009, 06:46 PM
Unless the parties involved are < 13 years old then yes you know what MAY happen if you choose to have sex. What you are saying is like someone robs a bank but doesn't think they are going to get caught, then gets caught but doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Babies do deserve more of a thought but why have to take any reponsibility for any action now that we have pills or long sticks to take care of it for us. I for one don't think babies should be just disposed of because we don't want to take care of them

Also I'm not in the camp that thinks that there are no abortions for any reasons if its rape or the mother is dying than i say that yes that should be left up to the mother or family. Other than that she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies.

It is clear on this we will never agree. Happily, at least for now, public opinion and the law favor continued access to legal abortions with limited government involvement.

Cody Covey
06-09-2009, 06:51 PM
speaking of government involvement. I have never really looked up the Roe v Wade case. (My mom was only 3 when it came up haah) Why was that a case that was able to be heard but the federal courts?

YardleyLabs
06-09-2009, 08:17 PM
speaking of government involvement. I have never really looked up the Roe v Wade case. (My mom was only 3 when it came up haah) Why was that a case that was able to be heard but the federal courts?
The Wikipedia write up is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade. By the way, the Court did recognize a legitimate interest of the State in protecting the potentiality of human life in a fetus but that was not the basis for any of the State laws prohibiting abortion then in effect.

Basically the Court made two findings that were critical:

First, there is nothing to suggest that it was ever the original intent of the Constitution to protect the unborn.

Second, the Court determined that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") requires that States not limit the rights of individuals without just cause. In the case of abortions, they determined that there was no cause presented that justified such an intrusion by the State into such a personal decision. This is generally referred to as the "right to privacy" but might be better called the right to liberty to use the language of the amendment.

In 1965 there had been an earlier decision of the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut challenging the right of the State to deny birth control. In that case, the SCOTUS overturned the state law based on the 9th Amendment to the Constitution ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). This reasoning was not part of the Roe v Wade decision.

dnf777
06-13-2009, 10:03 PM
When she made the decision to have sex..she made the decision to reproduce.

What about women who DID NOT choose to have sex, but instead were raped? What about 13 year old girls raped by family members??

Cody Covey
06-13-2009, 10:53 PM
please go back and read my posts. this was addressed.

YardleyLabs
06-14-2009, 06:05 AM
Unless the parties involved are < 13 years old then yes you know what MAY happen if you choose to have sex. What you are saying is like someone robs a bank but doesn't think they are going to get caught, then gets caught but doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Babies do deserve more of a thought but why have to take any reponsibility for any action now that we have pills or long sticks to take care of it for us. I for one don't think babies should be just disposed of because we don't want to take care of them

Also I'm not in the camp that thinks that there are no abortions for any reasons if its rape or the mother is dying than i say that yes that should be left up to the mother or family. Other than that she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies.

While I do not agree, I actually understand those who believe that abortions should be illegal in all circumstances because the fetus is a person. I also understand those who believe that abortions should be prohibited at a certain stage in pregnancy because the fetus is likely to have reached a stage in development that they believe crosses or may cross the threshold of being human (16 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks?). Finally, I understand those who would grant an exception where the mother's life is endangered.

What I do not understand are those who oppose abortion because the woman chose to have sex and therefore deserves to suffer the consequence. I also do not understand exceptions in cases of rape, incest, etc., where those exceptions are not based on threats to the life of mother or fetus. In my mind, if the fetus is human and deserves the protection of the law as a human being, then the circumstances under which the pregnancy occurred (rape, etc.) are irrelevant. When you argue, as you appear to do, that other than rape "she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies" and should be required to have the baby, you are effectively saying that the baby is just punishment for the mother's failure to prevent the pregnancy.

That view -- the notion that a woman who voluntarily engages in sex is somehow irresponsible if she becomes pregnant unintentionally and should suffer the consequence -- is exactly the reasoning that was rejected in Roe v. Wade. As the Court noted, we live in a society that does not view sex as being solely or primarily related to child bearing and that any notion of punishment is unacceptable. They also found that the law could not reasonably force a woman to proceed with a pregnancy that threatened her life or health. The only grounds for prohibiting abortion altogether in the eyes of the Court were either the protection of life, if the fetus were actually deemed to be human, or the protection of the "potentiality" of life which the Court indicated might be a reasonable foundation for regulating abortion procedures. All in all, I believe the decision was very well reasoned and should certainly be read by both its supporters and its opponents before they make too many judgments about it.

dnf777
06-14-2009, 07:23 AM
please go back and read my posts. this was addressed.

I did. I still see a fundamental inconsistency. If the life of the unborn child is sacred, and to be reveared the same as yours or mine, then why would the unscrupulous actions of a rapist change that fundamental belief? That would be like catching a rapist, then randomly executing a completely uninvolved third person? Its not that easy.

Please don't reply. There is no logical answer...only differences of belief, all supported by various Bible quotes, and the fight will go on for all eternity.

I joined this net to talk dogs, and out of curiosity looked under POTUS.....

With all due respect to others, those I agree with and those I disagree with alike, I am going to respectfully leave this forum and stick to the Retriever Training rooms.

I hope with all my heart that these discussions do NOT find their way to the fields. Lets keep it about the dogs out there.