Rush Limbaugh vs. The Founding Fathers
Boston, Massachusetts – 1770
In the tense years leading up to the American Revolution, British soldiers stationed in Boston fired on a crowd of protesters, killing five Americans in what would come to be known as “The Boston Massacre.”
The angry Bostonians, having little patience for a trial, wanted the blood of the British soldiers whom they would have very much considered to be “enemy combatants.” Indeed, it was only the colonists who feared British retribution that concerned themselves with trying to get the accused a trial. The problem was, where would they find a lawyer willing to take on so unpopular a cause?
Only John Adams, one of the original founding fathers of this nation and the man who would become the second President of the United States, agreed, without hesitation, to represent the British soldiers in a trial before a jury of Bostonians – despite the immediate and overwhelming calls for the lynching of the British Redcoats.
Many years later, and well after his retirement from public life, John Adams referred to his defense of the British soldiers in 1770 as -
…one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”
Via University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Review
This man who was among the very first to advocate a risky and dangerous war with England in the defense of liberty; this original American patriot who played one of the key roles in shaping the very principals upon which this nation would be founded; this man who was willing to risk his own life many times over so that the United States of America could be borne into existence, viewed his defense of five enemy combatants in an American court of law to be one of the greatest services he ever rendered to his country.
Why? Because Adams understood, better than most ever could, that this is precisely the point of the United States of America.
As we prepare to once again put five foreigners accused of killing Americans on trial in the United States Court for the Southern District of New York, the irony of those who would resist and rant against such a trial should not be lost on any American who believes in our system of justice as Adams did.
Yet, there are many who are resisting this attempt to comply with the fundamental principals of the American justice system. Remarkably, they are the very same people who pretend to drape themselves in the flag, day in and day out, in the effort to fool their followers into believing that they are the protectors of the American legacy.
One wonders if John Adams would agree.
Take Rush Limbaugh, who, from the comfort of his studio somewhere in the USA, blasted the decision of the Attorney General to hold the trials of the accused perpetrators of the 9-11 atrocities in a federal court room located in the city where the horrific crimes took place.
In making his argument for why such a trial is part of some liberal plot, Limbaugh said-
These guys have no defense. They’ve plead guilty. They admitted it. They wanted to be executed. They still do.
He went on to say -
Folks, I’m sorry. I can’t get off this decision to bring these terrorists to New York and conduct a trial. This is such an insidious plot. It is such a disaster. Do you realize Barack Obama is tougher on insurance companies than he is on the 9/11 mastermind? I want to know — Eric Holder — I’m still struck by things he said in his press conference. “We gotta find a jury of their peers.” These guys are not citizens! Who the hell are we going to find that is a jury of their peers? Do you realize we’re standing 200 years of America history on its head? A jury of their peers!
RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW, November 13, 2009
Trashing Rush Limbaugh is nothing new in blogs all across America given that so much of what comes out of his mouth is outrageous to the point of absurdity. Yet, never can I recall a time when Limbaugh so effectively exposed himself as someone who knows absolutely nothing of the American system of laws and justice or the history that gave birth to this nation. Worse, Limbaugh couldn’t care less about any of it.
While I’m not quite sure where Limbaugh found this record of the suspected terrorists admitting to their crimes and entering guilty pleas, there he is telling his listeners that no trial is necessary here because the alleged terrorists have already ‘plead guilty, admitted their crimes and have asked to be executed.’
Even if they have done so, can there be any other interpretation of Limbaugh’s words other than calling for a lynching of these people without the benefit of a trial? Is there anything so fundamentally un-American as such a call to illegal action?
Limbaugh is so mistrustful of his country’s system of justice- a fact he eagerly admits- that he would have us get down in the dirt with the very criminals to whom we are obligated to provide American justice. What Rush cannot see is that our system of justice, as practiced by John Adams, is precisely what makes us better than those who would fly an airplane into a building to kill innocent victims in executing their own misguided and evil interpretation of justice.
Yet, Limbaugh – and friends – would have us play the game by the same rules as the terrorists – despite the large number of Americans who have fought and died to protect and preserve our system which requires so much more of us.
And then there is Limbaugh’s criticism of Attorney General Holder for suggesting that the alleged terrorists should be entitled to a trial before a ‘jury of their peers.’ Rush laughs this off, pointing out that that the terrorists have no peers in New York City because they are not Americans. Apparently, in Rush-world, only Americans can be subjected to a jury trial for crimes committed on American soil because anyone who is not an American cannot find a jury of their peers.
Sorry Rush – but that’s just not even close to the definition of a “peer” for purposes of the law.
Here’s a riddle maybe Limbaugh will solve for us – a man arrives at JFK on a flight from Toronto, Ontario, the place of his birth. He gets off the plane and takes a taxi into New York City. Short of cash, the man spots a deli, walks in and points a gun at the ower ordering him to turn over all the cash in the till.
Or the illegal alien from Mexico who commits a crime while illegally on American soil.
When these perpetrators of crime are caught, should they (a) be tried in an American court where the crime has been committed, (b) be sent back to their home country for trial, thus denying justice to the victims of the crime, because the bad guys can only be tried by their “peers” in their home country or (c) be hung from the highest tree without the benefit of a trial because they are not Americans? the
I think we know what Limbaugh’s answer would be. But we also have a pretty good idea what John Adams would have to say and I’m pretty sure the answers would be very different.
So the next time Limbaugh goes on a rant about how Obama is subverting the Constitution or how accused terrorists are not entitled to a trial or whatever anti-American garbage he cares to spew, his listeners should try to remember a few fundamental truths about Rush Limbaugh -
Rush Limbaugh could not care less about American principals, values or laws. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t give a damn about the wishes and desires of our founding fathers, despite his willingness to take their names in vein whenever it suits him to do so. Rush Limbaugh cares about one thing – Rush Limbaugh. If calling for the lynching of the 9-11 terrorist suspects satisfies the bloodlust of Limbaugh’s audience, then it’s all good from Rush’s point of view. So long as those dollars keep on rolling in, to hell with everything that made the American system of law among the most envied in the world.
But should you happen to be someone who still buys into the Rush Limbaugh false brand of patriotism, do me just one favor. Ask yourself what John Adams and his contemporaries would have had to say about Rush and those who gladly fall upon the Constitution when it serves their purpose but willingly throw it out with the trash when it does not. Is this really what the founders had in mind when they contemplated the concept of patriot?
I believe that the evidence is eminently clear that John Adams would not have judged Rush Limbaugh an American patriot – but rather an American opportunist.
But, hey, he’s just John Adams – a guy who never accomplished a listening audience of millions of angry people. So why should we listen to him when we have Limbaugh to tell us what our founding fathers really intended for this country?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Excellent post.
I am stunned at the reaction of some people in regard to this decision. My thought was: It’s about time.
It seems that Osama’s plan has worked, we have a segment of our population completely terrorized and have argued that somehow bringing these guys to our soil to face Americans will put us in more danger. That in some way it is American and just to hold people in prison by executive decree.
If going back to 9/10 reasoning means we uphold everything our forefathers believed in and guide ourselves by the principles of the Bill of Rights
you can call me a 9/10′er.
Sorry Beck…I get to define what that means.
Thanks. And a good comment.
In response to another comment. See in context »Have you read Duprey’s argument?
In response to another comment. See in context »Not yet. Sounds like I should.
In response to another comment. See in context »It is amusing and sums up the outrage.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just read it. Wow. I couldn’t figure out why he was focusing his piece on a couple of elected officials in Virginia when it occurred to me that he practices law in VA. Maybe he’s looking for a gig from the incoming, GOP administration there.
John Adams felt that in a free country, no man being prosecuted by the state ought be denied proper legal counsel. He also thought the British soldiers were innocent, that the massacre was precipitated by the seething mob (Think 100 crazed Limbaughs surrounding a Pain Clinic & Puerto Rican Hot Dog Emporium) which itself was a reaction to the feckless policy of quartering soldiers in the city. After he got the British commanding officer off (the prosecutor couldn’t prove that he gave the command to fire), Adams got the soldiers off by assailing a crowd:
“The plain English is [the mob were] most probably a motley rabble of saucy boys, Negroes and mullattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jack tars.”
**Applause** Excellent post. I was starting to wonder if anyone else felt this way.
I heard a “911 Mother” (who lost her son) say the exact same thing yesterday, I think it was Cavuto’s show. I can excuse her, obviously I sympathize (in fact I lost a friend on Flight 93). However I wouldn’t want to base my system of government on her feelings or logic right now.
She gets a pass. But Cavuto, and my conservative relatives, who nodded and grunted their respectful assent, do not. Shame on these people. It’s a very small step from “Why do we need a trial, he’s admitted he’s guilty” (after being waterboarded 67 times)… up from there to “Why do we need a trial, we know he’s guilty”.
I add my praise of this post and applaud you for writing it. You hit every nail precisely on the head and summed up Rush Limbaugh’s intentions perfectly. We’re in the throes of a vicious sort of populism in this country right now and it’s important that Adam’s words not be forgotten.
Thanks to both Thomas and David for the nice words.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Confirm thy soul with self-control
Thy Liberty through law”
The lyrics to “America the Beautiful” are a reminder to all of us about how what it means to love our country and be a patriot.
nice!
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick you dishonor all Americans who have fallen in war…..by comparing the American Revolution to these heathens.
At the very least Obama is bringing this guy to New York for a distraction…as he pillages America.
You know, I was going to simply remove this comment as I do most of your comments. But I thought I should let everyone see the level of your discourse. The fact that you can manage to form the thought that I am somehow comparing the American revolutionaries to the defendants in the upcoming trial shows your inability to form a cohesive thought or to, in any way, “get” what is being written. We get lots of opinions and points of view from all sides of the political spectrum – but they tend to, more often than not, make sense.
In response to another comment. See in context »Once again you have leveled a shameful and personal attack against me rather than comment on the material. Last time, you suggested I wanted to pick the pockets of those gassed in death camps.
You don’t get it, pal.
This site is for those who want to discuss politics – not level disgusting, despicable charges at me or anyone else.
Enjoy your moment. You are now gone.
For my money, this says it all:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of
I read that article, and I have to say, it almost borders on the unbelievable.
It’s amazing what the power of the media is these days, regardless of party.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ummmm, It’s The Onion…
In response to another comment. See in context »Andy,
I’m not sure you know what “heathen” means. From Dictionary.com:
Heathen: an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan.
I’m glad you left up andylevinson’s comment because it gives a flavor of the paranoid populism that the Rush L’s of the world cater to: Under every rock a leftist conspiracy. Any comment not in line with the dogma a sign of unpatriotic subversiveness. Slander and character assasination convenient weapons against anyone who disagrees.
David
In response to another comment. See in context »I think it is the last one you’ll see. He’s the only person I’ve ever ‘censored’ off the site, but he really crosses the line. We get some wing nuts here, which is, for the most part, fun, but andylevinson has really said some unbelievably personal things (most of them already taken off the posts where it has happened) and I’m not sure he should be encouraged or rewarded by getting the attention.
FIRST OF ALL THAT WAS DURING BRITISH RULE BEFORE THERE WAS A UNITED STATES AND JOHN ADAMS RESPECTED THE LAW AND WAS RIGHT IN DOING SO BUT THE REST OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS INCLUDING JOHN ADAMS AND THEY WERE STILL APART OF ENGLAND SO IT’S COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT
An interesting argument – if it weren’t completely wrong. While American law has its roots in British law (not surprisingly), post revolutionary war EXPANDED defendant’s rights beyond the British system of justice – and very much at the behest of John Adams! Thus, the law of the USA further favors my point of view rather than your suggestion that it somehow would have relieved Adams of his obligation to provide a defense. All due respect, you could not be more incorrect.
In response to another comment. See in context »An interesting take on the JAdams defense of british soldiers pre-revolutionary war and applying it to a civil trial for alleged terrorists. Now, to apply your logic we need to conclude that these are not alleged terrorist declaring war against America, that they are merely your average citizen that commited a crime. Now, IF you look a bit farther into history you will also see that George Washington (also kind of an important guy in establishing the country)during the war hanged several “patriots” in his regimen for merely floating the idea of overthrowing his command. In addition, hundreds of instances occured in which the patriots quickly “tried” and executed british soldiers for “acts of war” far less serious than that of which these pieces of human excrement are accused. Different time, different circumstances? Obviously. However cherry picking your founder to support your view is a little disengenious or maybe just blantant ignorance as to other historical evidence supporting the opposing view. Either way fun to debate!
And an interesting argument on your part- although making a good argument and ending it with a suggestion of ‘blatant ignorance’ is kind of passive/aggressive, no?
I don’t,ultimately, see our example as being as on point. What a leader of an army does with his soldiers whom he believes are guilty of insurrection is simply not a reasonable comparison. It would be a reasonable comparison to the rules that still apply to soliders in the US military who desert, go AWOL, or commit any number of crimes of varying degrees. The story of Private Eddie Slovak, who was executed by the US Military for deserting comes to mind as a much more fitting comparison to your point.
In response to another comment. See in context »The key to this is the question of whether or not the terrorists are actually ‘enemies of war’ and, therefore, foreign combantants as defined by the Geneva Convention. I would argue that they clearly are not. Mass murdering zealots hell bent on our national destruction – you betcha. But not soldiers in the service of a nation (as required by the law)- rather soliders in the service of of a fundamentalist extreme of a religion.
Let me ask you this. Recently, a fundamentalist Christian hellbent on the destruction and death of anyone who is responsible for performing abortion, murdered a physician who did abortions. Is he a terrorist…an enemy combatant..or another criminal who committed a horrible crime in furtherance of his fundamental beliefs?
As I’ve said in other posts, just because the Bush Administration came up with the term ‘War on Terror’ doesn’t, for purposes of determining a foreign combatant, make it any more of a war than it did when J.Edgar Hoover came up with the term “the war on organized crime.”
I want these guys to go down as much as anyone else. I just don’t want our fundamental believes and system of justice to go down with them.
Nice rebuttal Rick. Now the problem with comparing the christian who murders an abortion doctor to a terrorist who openly declares jihad against the western world should be obvious, but let me explain. The christian is wrong and is indeed committing an illegal act against societal law and in fact, God. You will be hard pressed to find a fundamental christian pastor who would say that it is ok to kill anyone. The jihadist (holy WARrior) although not in a formally declared army with uniforms kills without regard to religion, race, ethniticy to inflict terror because he is at war in his heart and mind. Just because we now want to call it “man made disasters” doesn’t make it any less an act of war. The christian you speak of is few and far between as you can count on one hand how many abortion doctors have been murdered in say, the past 20 years. Can you do that with the jihadist? In fact, I cannot recall any mass murders who screamed “praise Jesus” before committing such atrocities.
In response to another comment. See in context »I see what you are saying, but some problems.
First, I agree that it would be hard to find a fundamentalist Christian minister who would support what the abortion doctor murdered has done. By the same token, I do think that the overwhelming majority of Muslims would condemn what the terrorist do. I accept that the numbers may well not be the same, ie., there is more than likely a far larger precentage of ministers worldwide who would condemn the murder than percentage of Musims worldwide who would condemn the terrorists. And while you are right that murders of abortion doctors are few and far between, I’m not sure this is a ‘numbers game’.
While I agree that Islamic terrorist kill without regard to religion, ethnicity, etc. (although we would probably agree that they have bigger problems with some religions than others), it’s not unreasonable to say that one who kills to stop abortions is not any different. They don’t care about religion, ethnicity, etc. And I really do think they kill as terrorist-their intent being to strike fear and alter the behavior of their target – physicians who perform abortions.
In response to another comment. See in context »And,let’s be honest, we have absolutely no idea what goes through an abortion doctor killers mind, a mass murderer’s mind or what they say as they committ the act.
I see your point that Islamic terrorists have killed far more people than the other example. But wouldn’t you agree that the Islamic terrorist and the abortion doc killer have the same goal? Each wants to impose his/her will on society by influencing it through an immoral and illegal act. I think both examples have declared war on America – the Islamic terrorists have declared war on the very idea of us while the abortion killers have declared war on American law.
All that said, it is pretty well off the point of your original argument which was that I was ‘cherry picking’ my founders. You used the example of George Washington hanging seditious soliers and I answered by pointing out what I think are the considerable differences between the two.
You’re a pretty good debater, so I’d be interested in your response to the original point.
Rick,
John Adams’s actions were very unpopular at the time. We should never forget that many Americans at the time of the Revolution were Loyalists. While Benedict Arnold has a bad name now, after his betrayal, he lived the high life in New York for several years. Of course, the politics of those who resisted the revolution was Conservative (Tory). I’m just saying.
“Benedict Arnold” – more proof that you can’t trust people with two first names.
In response to another comment. See in context »Misterb – very true that Adam’s actions were unpopular. I didn’t know that Arnold was taken good care of after selling out. Interesting history!
Rick you said and i quote
“What Rush cannot see is that our system of justice, as practiced by John Adams, is precisely what makes us better than those who would fly an airplane into a building to kill innocent victims in executing their own misguided and evil interpretation of justice.”
now my question is are we really better than them
i was placed on probation for running away
and while i was on probation i left my home without permission from my parents
i was placed on house arrest for absolutley no reason
now is that really better than what you call terrorists
theyre not terrorists theyre called extremeists for a reason
our government has been abusing its power for over a hundred years
and the so called “terrorists” are fed up with it so they are going to extremes to make it stop
so ill ask again are we really better than anyone else in the world
My answer
NO
we are all equals
Thank You
and Have a Nice day
Well, I’m not sure the situation is analogous nor do I follow the case you are making.
However, I am pretty curious about your own case and would like to know more.
First, how old are you? If you ran away and got in trouble, that would lead me to believe you are a minor. Is this recent history or past history??
Secondly, WHO put you under house arrest? You say someone did without any charges. Did your parents put you under house arrest or did the law? Nobody could put you under a house arrest without (a) charges filed, (b) a hearing where a judge allows you to be at home rather than jail. If you were convicted of something, then it would not be a house arrest, it would be confinement to house as an alternative to prison.
You need to provide more facts- and make sure you have them right.
In response to another comment. See in context »