Civil Rights: Protecting the Uncivilized

We're not dealing with people, here, we're dealing with animals.

Oh, how many times have I heard it said? "We shouldn't detain people if they're not sure they're actually terrorists!" Well look at what terrorists do! Now don't you even try to tell me that we shouldn't take extra caution when dealing with the group of people who turn out the VAST majority of the world's terrorists. They murder people at home, and they fly planes into buildings abroad.

For every one innocent suspect we detain and investigate, 100 innocent people have been raped, sodomized, beaten, and executed by our enemies around the world. INNOCENT PEOPLE. The rooms mentioned in the story I linked to are real. These things happen, and normal human beings don't commit these atrocities. Only a savage animal, one with no regard for law and order, could bring *it*self to act in this manner. And they're savage animals that we strive against.

No matter how hard you try, no matter what hardships you suppose these people--I mean, things--have endured, you can't justify their actions. The severity of what they have done is in no way made acceptable by the fact that America supports Israel, or that Israel wants to keep her land. You can't say that these people have a right to act as they do; they may or may not have a right to be angry, but their actions are despicable, and should be stopped and punished.

The actions of these animals make them unworthy of whatever mankind has the ability to give them; money, asylum, protection under the law: All these things are luxuries that were forfeited by the terrorists when they refused to respect the law, and the inherent rights of mankind. It is insanity to continue defending the rights of people who don't believe in rights! Pardon these criminals, see how they repay mankind! Explosions, massacres, fanaticism and bigotry, that's all these animals know, and if you protect their rights, they're going to continue in their old ways. That's all they know to do, and that's all they care to do. And that's all they will do, if they are given the rights of a normal human being.

I'm SICK AND TIRED of people who are actually so concerned about a few people's freedom being suspended during an investigation that they'd actually permit thousands of other human beings to be killed, 9/11 style. Again.

Wasn't it proven on 9/11 that if you aren't safe, you'll be sorry? And didn't everyone decide, including America's liberals, that it's generally a good idea to be safe? Then why in blue blazes don't they want us to be safe? You can't be safe by affording terrorists the same rights you give everyone else, and you certainly aren't going to be safe if you just ignore the cause of the problem!

FACT: Muslims turn out most of the world's terrorists, especially the ones who have a grudge against the USA.

FACT: Most Muslims are of Arab or North African descent.

FACT: If you don't check these individuals closely, the terrorists among them WILL ATTACK AMERICA.

So, uh, why don't the liberals want us to "profile" in order to make sure we stay safe? Do they really want the bad guys to win, in the name of those causes they claim to champion, human rights and civil rights? Call me crazy, but I think that if you are fighting for the rights of mass murderers to continue their hobbies unabated, then it means you really have no concept of right and wrong. If you're protecting the "rights" of terrorists, while leaving the innocent out in the cold, you probably need to rethink some things (or just go live with the terrorists, provided you don't mind wearing a burka and submitting to tyranny). Since this is essentially a war between the psychopaths and their targets, the fanatics and the innocent, the right and the wrong, I'd say that liberals really have no authority to speak on any subject relating to the War on Terror. They're just a little too confused to tackle such a subject.

Because I know that some poor chap will immediately accost me after I post this, attempting to enlighten me to the fact that not all Muslims are terrorsts, I will go ahead and tell you what I know. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists (specifically the ones we have to worry about) are Muslims. And, since Muslims belong mostly to a couple of specific ethnic groups, I see no problem in screening these groups more intensely than we would screen other, non-threatening groups.

And at this point somebody will try to lift me from my slough of ignorance, informing me that we tried this during WWII with the Japanese. However, I'm not advocating concentration camps! I AM advoctating, however, the use of closer screening methods. If someone has a suspicious background, we shouldn't be afraid to detain them. In fact, we'd be stupid not to. If someone is a suspected terrorist, but is allowed to romp and frolick about our country while we investigate his past and his intentions, we could very well regret it. While we're figuring out what he means to do here, he'll let us know in no uncertain terms, if he is a terrorist, and by that time, it will be too late. And the whole point of investigating this suspect is to keep him from hurting us. So really, is it so bad to detain suspects?

Everyone is so worried about the FBI detaining people who aren't actually guilty. What they must understand, however, is that being detained isn't the punishment for guilty people, and it's no crime to detain someone who's suspected of being guilty. Conviction is the punishment. How can we convict someone we can't investigate, and how can we keep them from causing trouble while we investigate them, if we aren't allowed to detain them? For goodness sake, no one's going to be detained unless there is enough evidence against them to cause concern for the safety of the public! The FBI has no reason to arrest you if you don't appear to pose a threat.

At this point, some well-meaning person will inform me of a horror story that somebody forwarded them, about the evils of our law enforcement, and how no one is safe while the law enforcement is out. Somebody needs to get the people who believe like this out of Nazi Germany; the FBI is not the Gestapo. They generally act rationally. They generally act when they have evidence to support an action. If evidence supports an action, then don't accuse them of brutality for acting. Brutality is found in Iraqi rape rooms, not American law enforcement offices.

I, for one, want to be safe. I want those around me to be safe. We are innocent. For whatever reason, though, the liberals would rather keep a few suspicious people from being inconvenienced than keep thousands of innocent people safe. If the suspicious person is innocent, well then, good for him. If he's guilty, good for us; that means we're safe... But not if we can't keep the suspect from wreaking havoc while we investigate him. I'd rather a few innocent people be inconvenienced than a thousand innocent people die. That's common sense. Unfortunately, the liberals hold somewhat different values.

Whose side are they on, anyway?