Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House: Boston Bombing Suspect Won’t Be Charged as ‘Enemy Combatant’
The Blaze ^ | Apr. 22, 2013 | Billy Hallowell

Posted on 04/22/2013 12:15:05 PM PDT by Mozilla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: SoCal Pubbie

If you think categorizing US citizens as enemy combatants while on US soil is a good idea, you trust our government more than I do. Because I don’t understand where the line is drawn with regard to who gets that designation.


41 posted on 04/23/2013 12:10:36 PM PDT by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga
You must trust your government more than I do to effectively fight foreign attacks. So I guess we're even.
42 posted on 04/23/2013 12:42:52 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

Well that is your choice of course, to give up your constitutional rights in the name of this larger threat. I am not willing to go down that road without a fight.


43 posted on 04/23/2013 12:58:10 PM PDT by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga
I'm not giving up Constitutional rights. The Court has ruled on that one.

Furthermore, you sound like those crying for gun bans. There ought to be a law! I'm a citizen! Any regime corrupt enough to label a non enemy combatant an enemy combatant is corrupt enough to plant evidence, or launch a drone strike and get it over with. Citizen or not. All rights must be guarded with vigilance.

It's so obvious that this adminditation is hell bent on NOT labeling ANY terrorist as Islamic. That's what's behind this move.

44 posted on 04/23/2013 4:16:04 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

“I’m not giving up Constitutional rights. The Court has ruled on that one.”

Really? What court? What case?


45 posted on 04/23/2013 8:42:20 PM PDT by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld


46 posted on 04/24/2013 8:08:08 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

No. He was not on US soil.


47 posted on 04/24/2013 9:38:07 AM PDT by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

Haupt was.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt


48 posted on 04/24/2013 2:22:49 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

Yes, that’s true. On the other hand, he was working for a known enemy with whom we had declared war. The current situation would require some review to determine who he was working with and whether we are at war with that group. Furthermore, Haupt was afforded counsel and a right of review. I assume you want this Russian guy to be declared an enemy combatant so we can torture him and deny him counsel. That would be unprecedented. And the Court never reached that type of review in Haupt, Hamdi or Padilla.


49 posted on 04/24/2013 4:02:50 PM PDT by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

Why would you assume that?


50 posted on 04/24/2013 4:09:26 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson