Posted on 04/20/2013 12:55:08 PM PDT by yoe
You bet, I agree with you 100%
I was just commenting on what you wrote about the civil rights violation could be used against anyone, no thing.
Who says?
He can be charged with making and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and terrorism under laws such as the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
How did he do that and where does it mention that in the Constitution. Face it, you are not a conservative, you are a commie. Go over to Democratic Underground and post with the rest of your ilk.
I generally agree with you, however there is a caveat, the surviving bomber only took his oath of citizenship on September 11, 2012. The bomb plot was already in the works, orchestrated by already known foreign terrorist organizations.
He took his oath of citizenship as cover for a covert operation, he should be charged with such in an immigration court, this should be claimed in an open courtroom and a immigration judge/jury should decide.
The 2010 Times Square bomber also took the oath of citizenship AFTER he had initiated the 2010 bomb plot, he too should have had his citizenship revoked due to false pretenses and tried as an enemy combatant.
Here is a good article to review the case law, legal precedent:
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/11634.htm
I hope you guys eventually come to the conclusion you’re both correct (sez the guy about to be flamed from both sides).
John’s right, the Feds moving in and trying this guy is not in the enumerated powers. He’s also right we’ve been violating this for at least 150 years. We can’t get back to where we should be if we keep taking steps away from the enumerated powers, toward tyranny.
Ron’s right, that train left the station a long time ago, and we have to work with the structure as it is today, which is: The Feds have made this an enumerated power, and because of that the state’s power is diminished, perhaps to the point that justice won’t be done on this guy. Trying him in a Federal court may be the only way he gets what’s coming to him (MA hasn’t had a death penalty since 1947).
Ok, please shoot past me if you must? Gracious.
If they are a U.S. citizen, you have to treat them like a U.S. citizen. If you could PROVE that citizenship was not valid, then things change, but the government has to prove these things. All the protections you are erasing for someone else, you are giving up for yourself.
I am not even so interested in what happens to this bomber. I am not looking for “revenge”.
I want to see this pursued for its Islamic Terror implications, and you’re not going to get anything more than a monkey-circus out of a Massachusetts courtroom.
Of course, Obama is already and will continue to cover for the Saudis and Islam, but I don’t need to give him a courtroom circus to do even more damage in.
Well, if he did something to revoke his citizenship, then it can be revoked. But, they still have to prove that, right? Since when do conservatives support the idea the government just does whatever it wants, and doesn’t have to follow the law?
Sorta true. He did not commit 'a' federal crime, he committed several. (Just owning the parts to make a bomb makes you a federal criminal and these clowns made the bombs set them off at an international event and then chucked them at LEOs when they were trying to get away)
But you knew that already and if not you should stop posting til you know what you are talking about.
Good point but I also think that he chose to become a citizen In 9/11 for a reason. They know our laws very well and know how to use our courts to their advantage. He became a citizen to (1) deceive us about his intentions and (2) to take advantage of our legal system if caught.
He knows who his “handlers” were, the Saudis with the expensive cars they loaned him.
He knows who the Saudi with the burned hands is and where the bomb-making class where this dork got an “F” is.
He should be sent to Gitmo and waterboarded until he sings like a canary.
Lawyers should stick to Law, and let Soldiers stick to War.
That is, unless you want to see more of this.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Have they overstepped the original intent, no doubt.
A public attack against American Citizens by an individual(s) with a device that is designed to inflict hideous damage, I think the Founders would consider that an act of war, suitable for the Government to handle in the legal sense.
I see you’ve been working your way down the thread. Check out post #191. Revoking citizenship is not, nor should be an easy matter. There needs to be some due process.
Trust in the US government is at an all time low, the majority of libertarians, conservatives, moderates and center leftists in this country don’t trust the government to do ANYTHING correctly, let alone handle a socio-political football that is this legal case.
And yeah, I agree with you, but really, between AG Holder, and Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney, Massachusetts, the level of political calculations made in their every prosecutorial decision is so widely disproportionate to anything approaching a reasoned course of action for a civic bureaucrat, I myself have little hope this situation is going to go forward in anything less than a poolarized political media circus.
Proving he swore a false oath in order to strip his citizenship in order to try him as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal seems like a convoluted way of going about things. We would have to show that he intended to do this stuff when he made the oath, not at any time thereafter. That could be very tricky, unless there is a bunch of evidence we don’t know about. Maybe there is. What legal entity would make that determination? The FBI? Homeland Security? INS? Federal Court?
Try him for Treason and murder and be done with it.
Ouch! I meant #101. 191 hasn’t happened yet!
Perfect sum-up. The one sure thing is this is about to be totally screwed up.
I agree. He is not technically a citizen. He is a citizen. Unless the govt can offer proof that he was serving the interests of specific enemies at their order or request this is a crime against the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. and he should be tried under the Commonwealth’s statutes. If the feds want him, he should be tried under appropriate Title 18 statute. The govt or Lindsey Graham do not get to use the term enemy combatant whenever they like.And does anyone think Obama and Holder will want to actually link this guy to specific overseas groups when they’ve tried to erase the idea of the GWOT from the minds of Americans?
So you probably have read about the recent Amish hate crimes involving Amish people from one sect driving across state lines to shear the hair of the beards of Amish from another sect.
The Federal prosecutor claimed successfully in court that because the scissors were made in one state, and travelled to another state and were bought by the defendants to commit a crime, that the crime was considering a Federal Crime under the Commerce Clause.
Here is a WhirledNutsDaily article on the subject:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/amish-prosecuted-because-scissors-crossed-state-lines/
According to this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if any piece of that bomb, or any physical mode of transportation of the bombing materials, was made in a state other than Massachusetts, the bombing can be classified and prosecuted as a Federal Crime.
... we live in interesting times.
I’ve a problem with that because SCOTUS said slavery was legal. SCOTUS says abortion is legal. SCOTUS says Affordable Healthcare Act is legal.
SCOTUS is not the arbiter of God given rights. It does not say any of this under the constitution. They can quite frankly go to hell!
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.