Of the Bill of Rights?

[fj1200]

We allow for discretion in such matters, don't we? Say, if the police said, "Come out with your hands up." to which the person replied, "you'll never take me alive coppers" -- Hasn't the person relinquished their right to a court trial? Its kind of like the rules of engagement, where if there is a reasonable belief they will commit a violent crime, you can shoot somebody in the back to prevent it. I mean, do you believe that, if we'd of sent a special ops team into where he was, he would of surrendered and been brought to justice? I don't think so, I'm 99.999% sure he would have fought to the death and attempting to capture him would have placed a far greater number of people at risk of losing their right...to life. So the question is--What is a reasonable attempt to bring someone to justice in a court of law? Is issuing an arrest warrant for a known terrorist a reasonable attempt?

That's not even close to the situation presented, re-read Jim's posts. If someone won't be "taken alive" or is resisting and shooting back... I don't expect them to make it to trial. If OBL was deserving of attempted capture in less than hospitable Pakistan then why isn't Awlaki as a US citizen?

[fj1200]

... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ...

Taken literally this amendment clearly has exceptions. One of those exceptions is a TERRORIST. The Amendment itself allows for them to be treated differently than a common criminal.

Exceptions for those in the US military or taken up against the US? You might be able to read that either way but I recall someone mentioning a case re: US citizen saboteurs (for Germany) during WWII that allowed deadly action.

[revelarts]

the Christmas day under paints bomber wasn't on U.S Soil and is NOT a U.S. citizen, he was in the act of terrorism against americans yet he gets a captured and put on a plane to the U.S. for a trail.
Not GUNNED DOWN in Said Foreign country. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
the fort hood Shooter, a U.S. citizen a terrorist, caught in the act of terrorism on a Military base, is some how captured and is now awaiting a trial in U.S. courts on U.S. soil.
NOT SHOT OR HUNG ON SIGHT. And the world is safe enough. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
The man who the gov't SAYS inspired them both, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen, is riding quietly down the street in car and is blown up by the CIA. Because he's on a secret hit list.
We don't see a problem with this? From what we've been told it seems he could have been captured.
Log, do you honestly think George Washington would approve of this? Would Adams or Monroe.

AS far as your what if's concerning Citizens on foreign soil, the Yemanese gov't is working with the U.S. and if certain portions aren't well Obviously we knew where he came from on that road and probably knew where he was going. We've rendered plenty of people from full on hostile countries. That's not Kosher but rendering for a trial makes some sense though legally that's a bit suspect as well.
But IF your a U.S. citizen drug dealer in Venezuela, the DEA could pick you up and surreptitiously transport you to the U.S. for drug smuggling. Without an extradition treaty, for a fair trail. Sure the DEA could Just Shoot you dead in the street coffee shop in the morning but that would be against Venezuela's laws and the DEA would agents would be put on trail for murder.

now there's a thought

[ConHog]

the Christmas day under paints bomber wasn't on U.S Soil and is NOT a U.S. citizen, he was in the act of terrorism against americans yet he gets a captured and put on a plane to the U.S. for a trail.
Not GUNNED DOWN in Said Foreign country. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
the fort hood Shooter, a U.S. citizen a terrorist, caught in the act of terrorism on a Military base, is some how captured and is now awaiting a trial in U.S. courts on U.S. soil.
NOT SHOT OR HUNG ON SIGHT. And the world is safe enough. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
The man who the gov't SAYS inspired them both, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen, is riding quietly down the street in car and is blown up by the CIA. Because he's on a secret hit list.
We don't see a problem with this? From what we've been told it seems he could have been captured.
Log, do you honestly think George Washington would approve of this? Would Adams or Monroe.

AS far as your what if's concerning Citizens on foreign soil, the Yemanese gov't is working with the U.S. and if certain portions aren't well Obviously we knew where he came from on that road and probably knew where he was going. We've rendered plenty of people from full on hostile countries. That's not Kosher but rendering for a trial makes some sense though legally that's a bit suspect as well.
But IF your a U.S. citizen drug dealer in Venezuela, the DEA could pick you up and surreptitiously transport you to the U.S. for drug smuggling. Without an extradition treaty, for a fair trail. Sure the DEA could Just Shoot you dead in the street coffee shop in the morning but that would be against Venezuela's laws and the DEA would agents would be put on trail for murder.

now there's a thought

Look, it's a murky situation at best, and yes you seem SOME terrorists being tried and some being killed outright and the fact is the government should decide one way or the other, do we try these clowns for criminal acts or do we just kill them like cockroaches. BUT you can't compare a situation where a guy is apprehended in an airport with one where a guy is hiding in a foreign country who's government is actively assisting him in alluding capture. That's just crazy.

[jimnyc]

All terrorists need to die, and deserve to die, no matter where they live. All terrorists deserve no rights, none whatsoever. Whether in USA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan... they are on the "battlefield" in the war on terror/terrorists, and get treated as the enemy. You give up your "constitutional rights" the minute you become a traitor and terrorist against the USA and her citizens. Arguing for the protection of a terrorist is completely asinine. With that "logic", an American citizen can go on a killing spree, kill thousands of innocent citizens in a terror attack, move out of the country and have the knowledge that the people hunting you down will be gentle and only trying to capture you and honor your "rights".

[logroller]

the Christmas day under paints bomber wasn't on U.S Soil and is NOT a U.S. citizen, he was in the act of terrorism against americans yet he gets a captured and put on a plane to the U.S. for a trail.
Not GUNNED DOWN in Said Foreign country. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
the fort hood Shooter, a U.S. citizen a terrorist, caught in the act of terrorism on a Military base, is some how captured and is now awaiting a trial in U.S. courts on U.S. soil.
NOT SHOT OR HUNG ON SIGHT. And the world is safe enough. And the world is safe enough and justice is being done.
The man who the gov't SAYS inspired them both, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen, is riding quietly down the street in car and is blown up by the CIA. Because he's on a secret hit list.
We don't see a problem with this? From what we've been told it seems he could have been captured.
Log, do you honestly think George Washington would approve of this? Would Adams or Monroe.

And where were all these terrorists arrested...on US soil. I believe the enforcement of our laws are bounded by our territory; their impact, and therefore our interests, are not so limited. Congress makes laws which carry their weight wholly in the domestic setting. In response to focusing events, like 9/11, the shoe and underwear bomber, we implement rules regs laws etc which have a great impact on our domestic activities--and yet these heinous actions continue to evolve around our laws-- predominantly borne in foreign locales, not within reach of either our judicial or congressional authority. So I ask you, would you rather have terrorists attacking us domestically, so we can bring them to justice--or-- attack them abroad, before they do so?

I'm sure you can agree that the domestic terror prevention policies have done little to abate such attacks-- threats still remain. The judicial role is to ensure those laws, when broken, are subject to validation by an independent body-- but this requires a law to be broken-- it is in no way preventative. The President has a unique constitutional role in our government, specifically with regards to foreign relations. George Washington sought privilege for exactly this kind of action regarding the communications of high-level executive government; specifically diplomatic relations and the avoidance of foreign wars-- (see, Jay's Treaty.)

AS far as your what if's concerning Citizens on foreign soil, the Yemanese gov't is working with the U.S. and if certain portions aren't well Obviously we knew where he came from on that road and probably knew where he was going. We've rendered plenty of people from full on hostile countries. That's not Kosher but rendering for a trial makes some sense though legally that's a bit suspect as well.
But IF your a U.S. citizen drug dealer in Venezuela, the DEA could pick you up and surreptitiously transport you to the U.S. for drug smuggling. Without an extradition treaty, for a fair trail. Sure the DEA could Just Shoot you dead in the street coffee shop in the morning but that would be against Venezuela's laws and the DEA would agents would be put on trail for murder.

now there's a thought

except the Venezualan govt and drug cartels don't bother with such niceties-- that's kinda the point. Fight fire with fire. Or maybe we place them under arrest like we did Escobar-- that was effective.


So you consider venezuala and yemen, even Pakistan, to be sympathetic to our plight on global terrorism, that diplomacy will win over the entrenched hatred of freedom bounded by law and order??? How exactly, does a justice system, which requires one to be brought before a court, seek to dispense justice to those who willfully promote, conspire and engage in suicidal acts? New threats demand new tactics.

[revelarts]

And where were all these terrorists arrested...on US soil. I believe the enforcement of our laws are bounded by our territory; their impact, and therefore our interests, are not so limited. Congress makes laws which carry their weight wholly in the domestic setting. In response to focusing events, like 9/11, the shoe and underwear bomber, we implement rules regs laws etc which have a great impact on our domestic activities--and yet these heinous actions continue to evolve around our laws-- predominantly borne in foreign locales, not within reach of either our judicial or congressional authority. So I ask you, would you rather have terrorists attacking us domestically, so we can bring them to justice--or-- attack them abroad, before they do so?

KSM was "arrested" in Pakistan. the U.S. citizen that was killed was no more dangerous than him. No need for extraordinary unconstitutional measures. There's nothing evolving but the same old desperate weak mans thuggery tactics that others countries have been dealing with for the past 40 yrs. No need to elevate the crimes to super villian status IMO at all. the ACTIVE enemy is small and weak. So far the best weapon against terrorist has been an alert public. not any of the extra constitutional activity.

...The President has a unique constitutional role in our government, specifically with regards to foreign relations. George Washington sought privilege for exactly this kind of action regarding the communications of high-level executive government; specifically diplomatic relations and the avoidance of foreign wars-- (see, Jay's Treaty.)

except the Venezualan govt and drug cartels don't bother with such niceties-- that's kinda the point. Fight fire with fire. Or maybe we place them under arrest like we did Escobar-- that was effective.

Firefighters fight fire with water and other chemicals, it's typically more effective.

So you consider venezuala and yemen, even Pakistan, to be sympathetic to our plight on global terrorism, that diplomacy will win over the entrenched hatred of freedom bounded by law and order??? How exactly, does a justice system, which requires one to be brought before a court, seek to dispense justice to those who willfully promote, conspire and engage in suicidal acts? New threats demand new tactics.

I never said they were sympathetic, Obama and Bush have said that Pakistan and Yeman are or "partners" and "friends" my point is even if they aren't completely on our team we don't have to loose our standards, our constitutional rights to remain "safe". and Again it's the same old threats we've known about 70 yrs., random bombing by a desperate enemy trying to shock a people off it's game. don't let them get to you.
spy, arrest, trials and throw the bums in jail.

[Gunny]

The only particular issue I have with his opinion is his insistence on putting homosexuality up with pedophilia and incest. They are not nearly the same thing, where in pedophilia, obviously one of the participants is not old to have informed consent and in incest where it is actually bad in a provable sense (creates mutations in the genetic code, that sort of thing).

Homosexuality most often is between two consenting adults, in which it falls under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is allowed by the ideals we stand by, that the government has no right to tell you how to live your life, or with whom. It is not the same as allowing sexual predators to do whatever they want, and it never will be.

I agree AND disagree. A male pedophile that preys on males is a homosexual also. I don't go in for that if you're one you can't be the other.

At the same time, I also do not agree that homosexuality necessarily leads to pedophilia and/or incest.

The "slippery slope" argument however IS a valid one. Our morals as a society have gone to shit as the left has pushed further and further left with all their blather and no one standing up to them without getting horsewhipped by the media.

[ConHog]

I agree AND disagree. A male pedophile that preys on males is a homosexual also. I don't go in for that if you're one you can't be the other.

At the same time, I also do not agree that homosexuality necessarily leads to pedophilia and/or incest.

The "slippery slope" argument however IS a valid one. Our morals as a society have gone to shit as the left has pushed further and further left with all their blather and no one standing up to them without getting horsewhipped by the media.

100% correct. Every time you give a group an inch, some of them take a mile. There comes a point where you have to say "NO" doesn't there? I say the same thing about drugs. Fundamentally, I have no problem legalizing pot. It's a plant and MOST pot smokers are in fact not a danger to anyone due to pot. However, we all know that the minute we legalize pot, there will be very vocal group demanding that we also legalize meth. And that is another kettle of fish entirely .

[Gunny]

100% correct. Every time you give a group an inch, some of them take a mile. There comes a point where you have to say "NO" doesn't there? I say the same thing about drugs. Fundamentally, I have no problem legalizing pot. It's a plant and MOST pot smokers are in fact not a danger to anyone due to pot. However, we all know that the minute we legalize pot, there will be very vocal group demanding that we also legalize meth. And that is another kettle of fish entirely .

Agreed.

Then there is the issue of the "right" to marriage. WHO has this right? I must have missed it in the US Constitution. Oh, it's in the 10th Amendment, correct? Those powers not expressly given to the Fed in the Bill of Rights go to the states?

Are not states voting/legislating whatever they want to on the matter? Oh yeah, they are. Some states have forced it down the throats of their citizens. Other states like Texas, had a referendum vote and marriage is between a man and woman was 80% approved. 80% of Texans are NOT GOP. It's up to the states and Federal courts making douchewad rulings are overstepping their Constitutional powers.

[ConHog]

Agreed.

Then there is the issue of the "right" to marriage. WHO has this right? I must have missed it in the US Constitution. Oh, it's in the 10th Amendment, correct? Those powers not expressly given to the Fed in the Bill of Rights go to the states?

Are not states voting/legislating whatever they want to on the matter? Oh yeah, they are. Some states have forced it down the throats of their citizens. Other states like Texas, had a referendum vote and marriage is between a man and woman was 80% approved. 80% of Texans are NOT GOP. It's up to the states and Federal courts making douchewad rulings are overstepping their Constitutional powers.

It always cracks me up when people scream that they have a right to be married by the state. Umm no, you don't actually. The state of Arkansas could just up and decide they weren't going to issue marriage licenses anymore and guess what? There wouldn't be damn thing you could do about it. And you know why? Because NO ONE is going to be arrested from saying they are married to someone else if they don't have that little piece of paper. Ever notice that when you file your taxes for married filing jointly the IRS doesn't even bother to verify that you are in fact married? They just assume you're telling the truth (although one would assume in the case that you got audited they'd fuck you over for lying.) Why? Because ultimately the whole state sanctioned marriage thing is nothing but a money scam and the government knows it.

I could NOT care less if Uncle Sam recognizes my marriage, as long as they recognize the legal contracts I have with my wife if and when the need arises.

[Gunny]

It always cracks me up when people scream that they have a right to be married by the state. Umm no, you don't actually. The state of Arkansas could just up and decide they weren't going to issue marriage licenses anymore and guess what? There wouldn't be damn thing you could do about it. And you know why? Because NO ONE is going to be arrested from saying they are married to someone else if they don't have that little piece of paper. Ever notice that when you file your taxes for married filing jointly the IRS doesn't even bother to verify that you are in fact married? They just assume you're telling the truth (although one would assume in the case that you got audited they'd fuck you over for lying.) Why? Because ultimately the whole state sanctioned marriage thing is nothing but a money scam and the government knows it.

I could NOT care less if Uncle Sam recognizes my marriage, as long as they recognize the legal contracts I have with my wife if and when the need arises.

Not sure how it works in different states. In Texas, if you live together for 2 years, you are common law married. According to the state. If that is based on a "Right", I don't know.

I completely agree the state sanctioning marriage is money scam. Been saying it for years.

Odd isn't it that the state can intercede in the church when it wants but you can't say a prayer in f-ing school because that's the church interceding in the state?

[ConHog]

Not sure how it works in different states. In Texas, if you live together for 2 years, you are common law married. According to the state. If that is based on a "Right", I don't know.

I completely agree the state sanctioning marriage is money scam. Been saying it for years.

Odd isn't it that the state can intercede in the church when it wants but you can't say a prayer in f-ing school because that's the church interceding in the state?

It is odd. Arkansas doesn't have common law marriage anymore. Used to be 7 years and you were considered married for all state purposes. Now they don't care if you live in sin.

[Gunny]

It is odd. Arkansas doesn't have common law marriage anymore. Used to be 7 years and you were considered married for all state purposes. Now they don't care if you live in sin.

If marriage actually belongs to the religion, how does the state sanctioning and/or not sanctioning it have anything to do with "living in sin"?

I live according to MY religious beliefs. Not the beliefs of some brand of Christianity. I AM a Christian according to the Word. Not according to the doctrine of some flavor of church. Just asking.

[ConHog]

If marriage actually belongs to the religion, how does the state sanctioning and/or not sanctioning it have anything to do with "living in sin"?

I live according to MY religious beliefs. Not the beliefs of some brand of Christianity. I AM a Christian according to the Word. Not according to the doctrine of some flavor of church. Just asking.

Oh, I was just putting it in my words Gunny. As far as the state is concerned it's not a sin of course.

And in actuality, I don't think of it that way either. My brother just married a woman he's been living with for 10 years. I guess he figured he may as well marry her since they bought a house and 2 new cars together.