FBI Releases Marathon Suspect Pictures

[Iamtdg]

How do you define an act of war against the country?

I understand citizenship can be revoked, but isn't there a process to doing that? I don't see how you can just say, "well you did this heinous act, you're officially no longer a citizen."

Well, to actually list everything that I think would qualify could take a while. After all, there are a ton of ways that an individual could incite terror.

 

[VTA]

How do you define an act of war against the country?

I understand citizenship can be revoked, but isn't there a process to doing that? I don't see how you can just say, "well you did this heinous act, you're officially no longer a citizen."

I'm fairly sure that's happened to an American citizen caught in Afghanistan, fighting against the U.S.
He didn't attack us on our soil, so the conditions might be different, but he agreed to have his citizenship revoked in order to avoid being tried/punished, whatever...

A quick lazy look brings me to his name: Yaser Esam Hamdi

Link

Haven't quite read it all, but he's who I had in mind.

 

[peplaw06]

Well, to actually list everything that I think would qualify could take a while. After all, there are a ton of ways that an individual could incite terror.

That's kind of my point. I would think the Aurora, CO shooting could be considered an act of terror. Does it amount to an act of war?

Without trying to sound too crass, the Aurora shooter killed more people than the Boston bombers did. Why is Holmes given his full rights, and these guys aren't?

I don't think you can say the Boston bombers weren't citizens as long and hang on that. That's a slippery slope.

I'm pretty much an err on the side of giving everyone their rights kinda guy. It's not like Tsarnaev is gonna get off if he survives this.

 

[JBond]

Revoking citizenship is much harder than earning it. You can lose it for misrepresentation. You can also lose it for joining a terrorist group. The problem is, that only applies in the first five years of being a citizen. After that it requires a civil or criminal conviction. So if the punks in Boston did not join their terrorist group within five years of obtaining citizenship it appears legally they should receive due process. Maybe that statute needs to be revised.

 

[Iamtdg]

That's kind of my point. I would think the Aurora, CO shooting could be considered an act of terror. Does it amount to an act of war?

Yes.

Without trying to sound too crass, the Aurora shooter killed more people than the Boston bombers did. Why is Holmes given his full rights, and these guys aren't?

He shouldn't have been, IMO.

I don't think you can say the Boston bombers weren't citizens as long and hang on that. That's a slippery slope.

Me, personally, doesn't hold to the notion that years in the country allows you more freedoms. I hold to the feeling that if you drop a bomb you lose your freedoms even to the point of loss of due process. Those parameters just need to be clearly defined.

 

[VTA]

The fool from Aurora is a perfect example of the abuse of due process.
He was caught in the act, there is no doubt as to his guilt; there's no need for a trial.

Due process wasn't formed in order to drag society through a circus and allow a murder to barter for his punishment. He should have no say. Like Loughner, who was tackled with the gun he used to kill and wound people.

 

[2233boys]

Again with disregarding the constitution when it fits your agenda. You can't help yourself.

 

[VTA]

Stop the nonsense.

 

[JBond]

It's Glenn Beck? Flush it

So much for being open minded. I am not a big fan of any particular media person, but you can learn interesting things from many places. Beck has been way off on some things and has nailed it on others. Your closed minded approach is systematic of the problems in America. I guess you are part of the "I don't like him so everything he says is wrong" crowd. It does explain why you are limited in your approach to issues.

 

[peplaw06]

The fool from Aurora is a perfect example of the abuse of due process.
He was caught in the act, there is no doubt as to his guilt; there's no need for a trial.

Due process wasn't formed in order to drag society through a circus and allow a murder to barter for his punishment. He should have no say. Like Loughner, who was tackled with the gun he used to kill and wound people.

Yeah, you're barking up the wrong tree here. The Constitution doesn't say you can't be "deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law... unless you're caught in the act of a crime."

People get caught in the act of crimes every day. You can't just deprive them of their rights because you catch them red-handed. And if you catch someone in the act of, for example, a murder vs. a DWI doesn't give you the ability to deprive the murderer of their rights.

 

[JBond]

Hey pep...where does it say you can kill citizens without charges, indictments, or a trial? That is SOP now. Get with the times. Your old fashioned views need a rewrite.

I fully agree with the slippery slope argument, and so do most of the people posting in this thread. I am a little surprised by the turn the discussion has taken.

 

[2233boys]

Hey pep...where does it say you can kill citizens without charges, indictments, or a trial? That is SOP now. Get with the times. Your old fashioned views need a rewrite.

I fully agree with the slippery slope argument, and so do most of the people posting in this thread. I am a little surprised by the turn the discussion has taken.

I'm pretty sure you were advocating he not get a trail just like VTA. In fact, until Pep, Jeebus and Dodger stepped in, I was the only one saying that it was wrong.

 

[2233boys]

So much for being open minded. I am not a big fan of any particular media person, but you can learn interesting things from many places. Beck has been way off on some things and has nailed it on others. Your closed minded approach is systematic of the problems in America. I guess you are part of the "I don't like him so everything he says is wrong" crowd. It does explain why you are limited in your approach to issues.

So we are listening to entertainers now, because that is what Beck and Limbaugh are IMO, entertainers. Count me out.

 

[JBond]

I'm pretty sure you were advocating he not get a trail just like VTA. In fact, until Pep, Jeebus and Dodger stepped in, I was the only one saying that it was wrong.

I never said he does not deserve a trial. Stop making things up to fit your view of me. I said we could use a military tribunal. I also suggested his citizenship could be revoked but then discovered under current law that is not feasible. Maybe we can set him free and drone strike his ass Obama style.

So we are listening to entertainers now, because that is what Beck and Limbaugh are IMO, entertainers. Count me out.

You really think you are better than others. Sigh... Thank you Jesus for bringing us 2233. He has all the answers. I tried to post some things that were relevant to the discussion, but the reality is you are just superpunk lite without the sense of humor.

 

[VTA]

Yeah, you're barking up the wrong tree here. The Constitution doesn't say you can't be "deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law... unless you're caught in the act of a crime."

People get caught in the act of crimes every day. You can't just deprive them of their rights because you catch them red-handed. And if you catch someone in the act of, for example, a murder vs. a DWI doesn't give you the ability to deprive the murderer of their rights.

Someone in the act of mass murder pretty much defaults on this right to life, liberty and happiness. It's why we have laws - the ability to take the higher ground and rightly punish them.

Intentional murder is a far cry from a common thief or drunk and the punishment and the path to justice need not complicated with misunderstandings. Precedents used to state otherwise (f you were to) are only historical mistakes, not validations for further ones.

 

[peplaw06]

Someone in the act of mass murder pretty much defaults on this right to life, liberty and happiness.

No, it doesn't. There's no "pretty much" when you're talking about constitutional rights.

 

[JBond]

Help a victim. The government shot up the dudes boat. That is a no-no.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boat-watertown-david-henneberry-222303887.html

 

[VTA]

No, it doesn't. There's no "pretty much" when you're talking about constitutional rights.

Then what is the point of making a distinction between a criminal and regular society? What is the point of a judicial system if the only people to be disadvantaged are law abiding citizens and victims of crime, while an obvious societal detriment has the backing of a system initially set forth to be prosperous?

 

[peplaw06]

Then what is the point of making a distinction between a criminal and regular society? What is the point of a judicial system if the only people to be disadvantaged are law abiding citizens and victims of crime, while an obvious societal detriment has the backing of a system initially set forth to be prosperous?

There is a distinction to be made, but that's AFTER due process has been afforded. Once they've been given due process and convicted, then they can be deprived of their rights.

It's not about who's disadvantaged. It's about every person (no matter their gender, race, or creed) having the advantage of having the judicial system work for them. That includes criminals and victims, the offenders and the offended.

 

[Jon88]

Someone as dangerous as this guy shouldn't have the right to remain silent. He needs to start talking in case there are more bombs out there.