Did they really do it? - Page 5
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58

Thread: Did they really do it?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    1,086
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Well, the problem is with Giuliani, not me. He said it, I heard it, and I quoted him here, and as well said that I tend to attach validity to what he says because of his various positions and record in criminal law. You may well be right though. Time will tell.

    There's been calls for the jihadist to be deemed an enemy combatant, which I said early on that I thought would be a good idea, but which I also said would never happen. Grahamnesty is one who's calling the loudest for it. I can't stand that limp-wristed hack, but I do think he's on to something here. If it were to go to a military tribunal (which is not necessarily an automatic result of deeming him an enemy combatant), then the car-jacked guy's testimony would likely be under less hearsay restrictions. Again, I don't know. I am not a lawyer and will follow anyone who calls me one to the gates of Hell to kick their ass! LOL

    Blues
    That's a slippery slope Blues. Either someone is a citizen and protected by the bill of rights, or not. By all accounts the terrorist is a citizen.

    Do you trust the government to declare which citizen is and isn't a terrorist? I sure don't. Just like the 2a, one transgression will lead to another.

    The scumbag will be punished either way.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,613
    Quote Originally Posted by kerb View Post
    That's a slippery slope Blues. Either someone is a citizen and protected by the bill of rights, or not. By all accounts the terrorist is a citizen.

    Do you trust the government to declare which citizen is and isn't a terrorist? I sure don't. Just like the 2a, one transgression will lead to another.

    The scumbag will be punished either way.
    Yeah, I get it. I'm usually pretty sure of my positions, but every once in awhile an issue arises that I'm conflicted about. This is one. On 9/11 one of the first things I said to my wife was, "We should turn Iraq into a glass parking lot!" It was a knee-jerk reaction, and one that as time has passed and American lives have been wasted for nothing with no end in sight for the GWOT, I regret even allowing myself to think.

    I could be wrong about this too. But I'm human. Every once in awhile I have a .....



    ....reaction.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #43
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BUmmedic View Post
    If this was planned and perpetrated by the government, there only one thing that I can't figure out (not that I'm a scholar of foreign relations or keep up completely with it these days)... why pin this on two young guys who hail from Chechnya? I understand they've been in country for a while, and thus could open the doors more to questions of domestic, home-grown terrorism, but hell, I was waiting for a photo of some white, Christian, USA Carry pin-wearing, NRA member sitting amongst his gun collection. I don't see the strategic motive behind this if it were an inside-job. The facts actually make it seem disadvantageous for the current administration: people are already calling for stricter immigration reform, an investigation into the FBI's role (since they interviewed the older bomber two years ago), etc. Things that would seem to go against the current wave.
    On top of that, putting the blame on a couple of Chechen muslims certainly doesn't help the president's case that muslims are tolerant and peaceful people who have played a significant role in US history, and that the war on terror is over (announcement made 4/23/12, Obama Admin: The War On Terror Is 'Over').

    Oh, wait a moment he got one thing right - they HAVE played significant roles in US history: 2/26/93 (WTC bombing), 9/11/2001 (WTC/Pentagon demolition), 4/15/2013 (Boston Marathon bombing).

    Anyone else see a recurring theme regarding the significant role these peace-loving muslims have played in US history?

  5. #44
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    623
    I'm perfectly willing to call a duck a duck. These two "nice guys" just happened to have explosive devices in their possession when engaged in a massive shootout with the police. These two "nice guys" just happened to kill an MIT security guard and rob a 7eleven during the two days of the entire bombing incident. One of these two "nice guys" just went to Russia before the bombing, surely just to see the sights.

    Looks, quacks, and walks like a duck to me.
    G'Day and G'lock

  6. #45
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by kerb View Post
    That's a slippery slope Blues. Either someone is a citizen and protected by the bill of rights, or not. By all accounts the terrorist is a citizen.

    Do you trust the government to declare which citizen is and isn't a terrorist? I sure don't. Just like the 2a, one transgression will lead to another.

    The scumbag will be punished either way.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    I hate to say it, but you are right on the money with this one. These two were both naturalized citizens, which means that the remaining brother has Constitutional rights to due process. And with that in mind, the Constitution already provides a special designation for him; there is no need to resort to pinning an "enemy combatant" tag on him.

    Article 3 Section 3, US Constitution:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    He is a traitor. He levied war against the United States and adhered to enemies of our country. There are a number of witnesses to his acts of treason who can testify against him in open court - not a secret military tribunal - as demanded by the Constitution. It is then up to Congress - NOT the president or his AG - to decide his punishment upon his conviction.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Western Wisconsin
    Posts
    353

    Did they really do it?

    Chechnya = oil rich

    Russia = running out and rationing

    Hmm...
    'I God, Woodrow, it's been quite a party, ain't it?

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    That is the only reason I'm glad they got the second one alive. Interrogate, trial, death penalty verdict, hang him.
    Wouldn't it be nice if they hung Major Hassan of the Ft Hood debacle long before they get to this guy. Workplace violence my ass and dead soldiers on duty not receiving at least a purple heart and some kind of payment to their next of kin. Boston is terrorism and Ft Hood with the ******* yelling for his Allah is not. What a crock of dung--just like the resident in the whitehouse.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I hate to say it, but you are right on the money with this one. These two were both naturalized citizens....
    I believe the elder brother's citizenship was held up due to the warning from the Russians. Regardless of the reason, I know I've heard that he had not completed his process at the time of his death.

    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    ...which means that the remaining brother has Constitutional rights to due process. And with that in mind, the Constitution already provides a special designation for him; there is no need to resort to pinning an "enemy combatant" tag on him.

    Article 3 Section 3, US Constitution:


    He is a traitor. He levied war against the United States and adhered to enemies of our country. There are a number of witnesses to his acts of treason who can testify against him in open court - not a secret military tribunal - as demanded by the Constitution. It is then up to Congress - NOT the president or his AG - to decide his punishment upon his conviction.
    There is that, but it doesn't unequivocally settle the quandary for me. Part of that quandary is just trying to sift through who to take as an authority on one side of the issue or the other. On the one hand we have Feinstein, the ACLU and the Obama Administration (through unnamed sources) saying no way should he be deemed an enemy combatant. On the other hand, we have Grahamnesty, McCain, Ayotte (who just voted to kill the filibuster on the gun control bill) and Rep. Peter King, all of whom either have been moderate to liberal for their entire careers, or, as in the case of Ayotte and King, have shown a real lack of spine when it comes to upholding founding and constitutional principles since Sandy Hook. Basically, I'm feeling like if I accept the arguments of either side I must be missing something, because none of these spokespeople for their respective positions are trustworthy in my mind at this point.

    In any case, Graham's counter to the standard criminal form of due process was articulated like this yesterday:

    From the Miami Herald:

    Graham invoked his 30 years of experience as a military lawyer to essentially confront the White House in broadcast comments.


    “He’s not entitled to Miranda Rights if he’s a terrorist who’s associated himself with enemies of the nation,” he said on Fox TV Saturday night. “No American citizen is immune from having the law of war applied to them if they collaborate with the enemy.”


    Designating him as an enemy combatant would keep him away from a lawyer and give the FBI and CIA time to interrogate him, Graham said. “I want to find out if he was in fact involved with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Clearly he is a prime candidate for that designation.”
    I know that SCOTUS has upheld the premise that I put in bold. What I don't know is whether or not the government has enough evidence, or if any evidence even exists, to show that the younger jihadist ever communicated in any way with anyone other than his brother. His relationship to his brother can hardly be deemed "collaborating with the enemy" with any legitimacy, so I'm unsure Grahamnesty is on solid ground there.

    Bottom line, I don't think either side of the argument is "right on the money" at this point. I'm going to try to familiarize myself with the laws covering enemy combatants and citizens, but I know for a fact that Padilla was held for a long time as one in the US, and that when he was finally prosecuted, he was convicted, so the prosecution suffered no impediments because of holding him under whatever statutes cover enemy combatants. I think the same is true for Hamdi, though I'm less familiar with his case.

    Still searching for answers......

    Blues

    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #49
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    ...On the one hand we have Feinstein, the ACLU and the Obama Administration (through unnamed sources) saying no way should he be deemed an enemy combatant.
    Here's the problem with the "enemy combatant" designation - the administration ended the war on terror last year. The State Dept, on behalf of the entire administration, declared on April 23, 2012, "The war on terror is over" (Obama Admin: The War On Terror Is 'Over').

    You cannot declare someone an enemy combatant when no state of war exists. It's that simple. The same man, Obama, who had such a fit about Bush declaring "Mission accomplished" while we were still engaging combat missions in Iraq, declared the war on terror over even as we are having to deal with terrorist sleeper cells here in the US. According to the administration, no one is fighting us, and we are no longer actively engaging terrorists across the world. The administration is now looking for ways to engage "legitimate islamism."

    Which brings me back to Article 3 Section 3. It is the safest route because it is the CONSTITUTIONAL route. "Enemy combatant" is addressed nowhere in the Constitution; it is extra-Constitutional, and therefore a suspect designation.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by r1derbike View Post
    There will be no frying or injecting or other means to execute the living brother. MA law has no death penalty. The citizens and taxpayers of that state, and we, the people will have to pay for a lifetime of incarceration for this miscreant. It hardly seems fair, the amount of money that will be wasted on that pond scum, could feed millions of hungry children.

    I don't know if the death penalty is valid if he is declared an enemy combatant, but if it is, after his trial, I would have no problem with his removal from the gene pool.

    If would be an atrocity against the taxpayers, if he sings like a canary, about ties to al-qaeda, and is plea bargained to life without parole.
    Feds can take him out of Mass state system. Then there is a death penalty.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast