- This topic has 6 voices and 111 replies.
-
Posts
-
I was listening to Ed Schultz this morning on the way to work (it is all I get on AFN) and he had Bennie Thompson (D) Mississippi, the ranking democrat on the committe on the air. They first talked about the manhunt and then the congresscritter started talking about how we may need to look at what methods, if any, people's liberties need to be modified in response to this attack. What really got me was Thompson started saying that we needed to use the list put together by the Southern Poverty Law Center to target hate groups for special attention. This despite the fact that we now know the brothers were/are Islamists. I see a massive amount of using tragedy as opportunity coming out of this, much like they tried to do with Newtown and gun control. I also heard some discussion later on the news that there is apparently some method whereby a Citizen’s 5th Amendment rights can be revoked. I was not aware of this, has anyone else heard this?[font=verdana, sans-serif]I was also especially sickened by Obama’s statement where the hand-wringing about why they hate us is already starting. This bombing and the aftermath are already starting to be politicized.[/font]
Any person/journalist that uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source needs to be disregarded, as that group is one of the worst kinds of liberalism, IMO. They single out so-called "hate groups" that are universally derided (the KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.) and then lump them in together with respectable groups which simply oppose liberal policies, such as gay marriage (I believe the American Family Association, etc. might be on their list). They claim "neutral observer" status while operating out of a clearly biased perspective. It's simply a way of marginalizing through smear those who disagree with liberals politically.
Now that the manhunt is over, I do have to say that it seems like it was overkill to have some 1 million people in the city of Boston to remain locked down because of one 19-year-old on the loose. I realize they didn't want anyone in the crossfire and they had been hurling explosives, but still…. Makes me wonder what would happen if war were ever to break out on our side of the shore.
If more people were out wouldn't that have meant more eyes? It was a citizen that saw the spotted terrorist anyway. Could thing he got bored and felt like checking things in his yard. I wonder if the next time it happens, it wil be a voluntary lockdown. I can see the Obama administration now”Hey, look at Boston. No one really complained. Let's just declare Martial Law next time”
Does anybody else but me find the idea of stripping this guy of his Constitutional rights disturbing?That two supposed Republicans are championing it just makes it worse in my eyes.
How do you know whether or not he's been read his rights?How do you know if this kid is even conscience? He was in critical condition.Even if they don't read Miranda to him, he still has those rights.LE's first job is to see if he had more bombs planted. Not to convict him, but for public safety. Let's say he planted another bomb at Northeastern. He gives the authorities that information, they find it and defuse it, THEN they read him his rights and charge him for it. If he's never read his rights, then I might have a problem with that. If they are questioning him to get information of more immediate imminent danger, than no I do not.
Oh yes, there is talk of it: This by John McCain, Peter King, and Lindsay Graham is what I am talking about. They are proposing to deny him the rights of a citizen before he even regains consciousness. This is of a part with the talk about a “public safety” exception to the Miranda requirements. I take especial umbrage at the idea that a US citizen captured on US soil can be stripped of his citizenship and declared an enemy combatant. If I am the only one who has a problem with this then the world has suddenly become a very lonely place indeed. If they can take his rights why can't they take yours and are they then even rights to begin with?
I don't care what any politicain or anyone in the media says right now, because they just don't know.The public safety exception to Miranda is a Supreme Court decision (New York vs Quales), you'll have to take it up with them.Of course I admit my opinions may be biased because we ar at war with Islam and I view this bombing as an act of war. And any Muslim, US citizen or not, who commits an act of terrorism (war) on our country doesn't deserve any Constitutional rights.
Of course I admit my opinions may be biased because we ar at war with Islam and I view this bombing as an act of war. And any Muslim, US citizen or not, who commits an act of terrorism (war) on our country doesn't deserve any Constitutional rights.
The problem is if they can do it to Muslims what then stops the decision from being made that say, Tea Party supporters, are also not deserving of their rights and liberties? It seems far-fetched now but it may not in a few years time. The SPLC would certainly agree that anybody who does not fall in line with lib-prog views is subversive and probably a threat to the state and they are at the forefront of Liberal thought.I don't disagree with you that we are at war with Islam. I just don;t think we need to tear up what is left of the Constitution in a quest for security, ole Ben Franklin had it right: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Because Tea Partiers don't blow up people at marathons. Anything the SPLC has to say doesn't stand a chance in any court. I dislike the ACLU, but they will be the first ones to defend this “hate group” garbage.I'm not tearing up the Constitution, I'm tearing up this PC crap. Would questioning the Imam in every **** Mosque in this country be a violation of the 1st or would it be considered an anti-terrorism measure? I vote for the latter. They hide behind and use our Constitution against us because in our muticultural sensitivity we let them. Profiling, questioning, and investigating them is not violating their religious freedom. We are not saying they can't practice their religion nor are we shutting them down. Where is that radical cleric at Northeatern? Where is the leader of the mosque in Boston where one if not both of the terrorists attended or once attended? Are they in custody or have they even been questioned? My guess is no.
Because Tea Partiers don't blow up people at marathons. Anything the SPLC has to say doesn't stand a chance in any court. I dislike the ACLU, but they will be the first ones to defend this "hate group" garbage.
Because the ACLU has done such a stellar job of that so far? Just review the SPLC's case docket and compare it the ACLU's Key Issues list and tell me how they materially differ. If you think the ACLU is going to back you up when the libs decide that conservatives don't deserve their rights then you need to study a little more. This is not about protecting a terrorist, it is about protecting all of us. I think our liberties have been infringed enough by the Patriot ACt without letting them slip this bit of nonsense into the mix. It is not coddling a terrorist it is about his rights and ours as a citizen, terrorist or not.You still have not answered my question: If it is OK to deprive a citizen of their rights in this instance, what is to stop any citizen from being deprived of their rights in the interests of National Security?I think I am one of the last people you can accuse of being soft on terrorists, I have sent my fair share to Allah personally. I believe my patriotism or sense of duty has been amply demonstrated. I just don't want to see the rights that I and my fellow veterans pledged our lives to defend be thrown away by the very government we put our lives on the line for.
I did answer your question: profiling Muslims is not a violation of their rights. And I also said that this “American citizen” committed an act of war on a major US city. I have no problem whatsoever taking away his rights as an American citizen. Let's even go the legal route-strip him of his citizenship. And there's no slippery slope here as I am only talking about Muslims and Imams. It's time the idiot politicians and other lawmakers in this country start taking this threat seriously without sugar coating it. Even Obama the other day “let's not jump to conclusions” and something along the lines of “don't judge a whole people” In other words, he along with many others have their collective progressive heads up their you-know-whats when it comes to Jihad and Islamic terrorism. Strip searching white, old ladies, and four year toddlers is the slippery slope we're on only because these morons are too afraid or too stupid to profile the group who likely do this. For example. What's it going to take to wake these people up? Boston has been hit twice so far – this one and the 9-11 hijackers flying out of Logan. I'm a little concerned what strike 3 will be. This kid and his dead brother are very likely part of a terrorist cell here in New England. They have in custody two others from New Bedford, MA who knew them. And don't make me defend the ACLU because I will not. Next to the Muslim Brotherhood, they are the most deceptively evil organization in America. But they have taken on cases that were religious in nature and have taken the religious person's side. Not many, but they have. And you and they are in agreement about reading this Islamic terrorist his Miranda rights. Don't even go there, Patrick. I have never and will never question your patriotism or say you are weak on terror.
It did cross my mind that the basis for considering him an “enemy combatant” and not giving him due process was strange, since he is, after all, a U.S. citizen. I hope it was not on the basis of his national origin, since that would effectively be saying that the laws which allowed him to become a U.S. citizen can get thrown out the window based upon what happens after the fact.I am not sure why they would need to consider him like this, and so that is what I find disturbing. I imagine they would want to use enhanced interrogation to root out any accomplices. The thing is, won't the FBI already have enough information to go on anyway? The suspects were not expecting to be caught by police so quickly, so they undoubtedly left a trail behind. I think Scout has a point - if you start making exceptions to the law based upon high-profile cases like this, you can make exceptions wherever you want. And then, what is to prevent those exceptions from being used against you or me if we fall out of favor with the government?I don't have as much a problem with the "public exception" to reading the suspect his Miranda rights. I believe that is an exception which has already been in place and has been reviewed by the courts and found to be constitutional. I have more of a problem with making up new laws or exceptions on the spot in response to events than laws which have been enacted and put into place before situations arise.
This is all staged for the future implementation of martial law. It's a test case to see what they can get away with and if the people will allow it. We are rapidly going down the rabbit hole.
If what we know so far or even most of it is accurate, then there are plenty of grounds to revoke his citizenship and then torture away. I am not averse to torture as you all know. I just have a problem if they don't strip him of his citizenship and then try to weasel their way out of it. It is quite possible to strip a naturalized citizen of their citizenship. I find it hard to believe that if he was naturalized last September that he was not in the planning stages of this attack then with his brother, which would be grounds for revocation right there. There is no need for tap-dancing here and that is what both the Administration and their RINO fellow-travelers are proposing. I am starting to think there might be some substance to some of Donnie's conspiracies after all.As to jettisoning all the PC garbage about who the threat is, I am with you 100%. We know who the threat is, we have just hamstrung our law-enforcement so that they cannot pursue likely targets. We have in effect, trained law enforcement personnel to see everyone as a threat even when we know they are not. It is time and past time that we the people stand up and demand that our government gets realistic.
I don't have as much a problem with the "public exception" to reading the suspect his Miranda rights. I believe that is an exception which has already been in place and has been reviewed by the courts and found to be constitutional. I have more of a problem with making up new laws or exceptions on the spot in response to events than laws which have been enacted and put into place before situations arise.
And that's exactly what they are doing. I'm the one coming up with exceptions or new laws. I do think it will be impossible for any court to strip an American-born citizen of his citizenship because it's by birth. Since it was a court that gave this guy his citizenship, then a court can take it away and it wouldn't set any new precedent. Since this "public exception" seems to be such a problem for everyone, then just do that. The guy is a jihadist and an enemy combatant. There is no doubt in my mind and he should be treated as such. Like I said, these people are using our Constitution against us and we cannot let them do this. How do you think they infiltrate the country? By using student Visa and becoming naturalized that's how. Making any exceptions for Islamic terrorists is not a slippery slope. If anything, it protects our rights more.
