
Pat Morita passed away on Thursday at age 73.
He is well-remembered for his role as Mr. Miyagi in "The Karate Kid" movie series and the unintelligible waiter at Arnold's Drive-In in "Happy Days."
Farewell Mr. Miyagi.
You read that right.
Those who think that pulling out of Iraq now will prevent terrorists from coming over here are seriously mistaken.
And yes, if we leave before the job is done, we may as well put armed troops into our own streets because that's where al-Qaeda will show up next. Once American and foreign troops are gone from Iraq, the war will shift to Europe and North America and those parts of the world where Westerners have a presence.
The peaceniks can go bury their heads in the sand if they want, but the problem will NOT go away that easily. Bin-Laden has said that he wants four million dead Americans before he will even consider stopping his jihad. Where, pray tell, might he find four million Americans? Not in Iraq. Not in Jordan or Indonesia. Not anywhere else in the world, but here in our own country. Duh!!
So for those stupid enough to believe that ending the Iraq War will appease bin-Laden, or any of his followers into not launching suicide attacks on the United States, think again. Get your heads out of your butts!
It's very discouraging to see two leading proponents (President Bush and Rush Limbaugh) of stopping judicial activism and "reading into the Constitution" (by liberal judges) engage in reading into the Constitution themselves in the name of national security. The President has no more authority to do this than activist judges who do it for their own activist causes.
Bush is sending the message that he doesn't mean what he says when he says that strict interpretation of the Constitution is the way to go. He means that he wants others to have the strict Constitution while he bypasses it and assumes powers that he is not authorized to possess.
If Bush and company was serious about strict interpretation of the Constitution, he'd stop the military tribunals and Rush Limbaugh would be praising his decision to do so.
But instead, everyone who disagrees with President Bush's current course of action is labeled a Bush hater or a liberal. That's very unfortunate.
He can stop shooting himself in the foot anytime he wants. We'll keep waiting.
Osama bin-Laden's former driver, now a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, has succeeded in getting his case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue is whether the U.S. military can conduct military tribunals for captured enemy fighters.
It's really bad when on of bin-Laden's associates correctly points out that the tribunals are against our own laws that spring from the Constitution and from our own Declaration of Independence.
It should be pointed out that President Bush has the right as Commander-in-Chief to send American troops into battle and to wage war with the consent of Congress.
However, he does NOT have the right to order the military to try foreign nationals unless they harm U.S. troops. Under international law, he is required to hand over terrorists to the governments whose territory or people were harmed, or to turn over suspects who harm foreign nationals to the nations that the victims are from. That very precedent allowed Pakistan to turn over Daniel Pearl's killer to U.S. authorities.
President Bush has chosen not to do that. Instead, he has the U.S. military conduct secret tribunals in the name of not only U.S. nationals who have been harmed by the terrorists overseas, but also Iraqi, British, Polish, Italian, Spanish and other coalition nations whose soldiers have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.
This is in spite of the fact that these nations would rather try the suspects themselves, or would rather have these suspects turned over to an international tribunal, thereby avoiding possible U.S. death penalties, which they also oppose.
The fact is that President Bush has exceeded his Constitutional authority -again- and now the Court has to remind him where the line is.
By establishing his own court system and bypassing the civilian court system, the President is indeed violating the separation of powers clause of the Constitution. It is Congress's Constitutional duty to establish courts that are inferior to the Supreme Court, not the President's.
Limbaugh is avoiding this topic by saying that this argument is a liberal attempt to weaken the President's ability to wage war against terrorists when it actually isn't.
It's an attempt to reinforce parts of the Constitution that are being assaulted by the current Administration.
More proof that that celebrities and politicians have a different criminal justice system than the average American have surfaced yet again. This time it's a presidential aide accused of lying under oath.
Many are of the opinion that what's happening to Lewis "Scooter" Libby should have happened to President Clinton too.
Consider: Two politicians were accused of lying to federal grand juries six years apart; one openly admitted to doing so, while the other claims to have forgotten information accidentally and that there was no intent to omit any information.
The one who admitted to criminal wrongdoing suffered great embarassment and subsequently walked away. He served no jail time, even after he left office. People at the time thought his status and political connections were keeping him out of jail (they did) and if it were an average joe who had lied under oath, that poor fool would be clapped in irons.
The one who claims to have forgotten information accidentally was indicted for lying under oath and resigned as Vice-President Cheney's chief of staff.
Huh??!
One gets caught, admits his guilt and gets away with it, while one maintains his innocence and is charged with a crime??!
Lying under oath is lying under oath. That is the crime that should be punished here until Libby is charged with revealing the name of a CIA employee.
It didn't matter if the entire Clinton-Lewinsky case was all about sex between two consenting adults. He took the oath to tell the truth and didn't. But HE wasn't indicted.
So, now it's been established that the President of the United States is exempt from criminal justice while the President's aides and the common joe clearly are not.
Has anyone ever heard of justice being applied equally and fairly? It used to mean something.