Posted on 04/20/2013 12:55:08 PM PDT by yoe
Nice try but that is not what you wrote and what I responded to.
You wrote that all code was illegal, you are wrong.
“tried as an enemy combatant, rather than as an ordinary criminal.” Would a trial as enemy combatant be open to the public?
I dont believe it’s constitutional. It should all be repealed.
Ditto!!!!! ...Your right on!!
I don't either. Encouraging rape in a prison seems a bit primitive to me. Besides, if this guy ends up in GP he's going to eat porcelain like Dahmer, not be somebody's "bitch."
“Federal jurisdiction applies as he killed and maimed people from other states and countries.”
Not really. He would have to have killed folks in other States or countries and then flee back to Massachusetts.
Only then would the issue be of extradition & jurisdictional not trying any of the crimes.
The only crimes Washington legitimately tries are crimes in D.C. or the Federal territories. Let Massachusetts deal with this guy, he is their problem. The only thing we really need to know is of his connection to overseas organizations. That might stage further attacks. But that’s information not prosecution. As far as I’m concerned its up to Massachusetts to decide whether or not they surrender the subject to be interigated for such information. It would be in their interest, But liberals frequently do not act rationally.
SIMPLE: HE VIOLATED THE CIVIL RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS OF THE ONES HE KILLED AND MANGLED AND THAT’S A FEDERAL OFFENSE AND THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE DEATH.
Again, you are side stepping what you wrote. It is well witihin the purview and responsibility of the Legislative Branch to right law, it is the check and balance of SCOTUS to determine it's Constitutionality.
Cleary, SCOTUS has been corrupted.
That does not negate what you originally posited, and you were and still are wrong if you stand behind it.
I think the “Enemy Combatant” would have a military trial, so no, not public. I see no justification for doing it, frankly, unless one is looking for a pretext to make this a federal crime so he can be fried.
But let’s get back to the original article for a second. It’s about Lindsey Graham and John McCain wanting to declare this guy an “enemy combatant.” Why would they say that? It’s to protect their precious amnesty plan is why. It’s a diversion. And apparently it’s working, just read upthread for a while.
Actually, that can be said of anyone who commits a physical crime against another.
But a completely understand your sentiment, frustration and anger....fry the bustard!
“Really, that is exactly what the Constitution spells out as the responsibilities of the legislative branch.”
The enumerated powers are as follows:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
* To borrow on the credit of the United States;
* To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
* To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
* To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
* To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
* To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
* To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
* To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
* To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
* To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
* To provide and maintain a Navy;
* To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
* To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
I don’t see anything covering this man’s act as Massachusetts is nether the federal district nor a Federal territory. The man in question is not a member of the military or militia in the service of the federal government nor did his crimes take place on the high seas.
would your opinion be the same if the state had the death penalty and the feds did not?
Oh, and thanks for accusing me of treason. That’s nice. Do you often shoot your mouth off without thinking? I have a feeling you do.
Yep, an innocent victim who engaged in fire fights just innocently defending him self from an over zealous Obama administration.
So what you’re saying is that if you scream loud enough, the constitution doesn’t matter?
Captured enemy combatants in WWII had it better in American POW camps than they did at home.
Many returned after the war as immigrants.
and he used a weapon of mass destruction to do it and there’s a federal law about that and someone posted that up this thread. And before he dies, his legs should be ripped off like he did to others.
There are foreign governments and international forces likely behind this that cannot be touched by the charade of a Massachusetts criminal trial. There is a reason we have a Federal Government, and I think it takes an extremely narrow view to think there are not Federal and international aspects to this attack that need the leeway accorded by Enemy Combatant status to pursue. Of course, I don’t expect the Obama administration to successfully prosecute this, but that does not alter where the responsibility lies.
Of course a lawyer can argue anything (as long as you have money), but there would be quite a lot of proof needed to be able to argue that I, as a natural born citizen were an Enemy Combatant. You would have to show extensive contact with foreign powers or the swearing of allegiance to some entity in conflict with th US, I would think, for it to make sense, along with a clear intention to “attack” the US or its citizens.
It seems pretty clear to me in this case. The swearing of an obviously false oath cannot be seen to reasonably protect him, I would think.
If he did not commit a federal crime, what was the FBI doing in Boston?
Thank you for your reply.. And your correct, I’ll consider this again with the amnesty angle. I learn here every day!
[We should do this because that's what U.S. law says. But the added benefit of protecting our own rights. The Obamas, Bushes etc. of the world would love this guy to be an enemy combatant. They can make anyone they don't like an enemy combatant and call in a drone strike against them. Someday when you are taken out by a drone strike for voting Republican, you have only yourself to blame for abandoning the U.S. Constitution and U.S, principles at the drop of a hat. You are a total tool of the left.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.