Posted on 10/23/2006 4:06:16 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Read the debate and learn something. There are some real concerns about this legislation raised in it.
It's a shame people just ignore them, like the courts ignore the ratification debates. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I wouldn't exactly hold that as a badge on honor on this forum.
So, are you stating that US military personnel firing upon American citizens is just dandy with you? Is that correct?
If the law is not explicit then the law is deeply flawed. This was too easy to fix for the omission to be unintentional. Thus, your argument citing the blandishments on the floor is very weak.
There is more than one way to interpret legislative intent. The problem with citing floor debate is that it is impossible to plumb the understanding of the majority that voted for the legislation, which bears equal weight to the intent of an author.
Nix it or fix it.
The law has been written to prevent prosecution of an American citizen on the basis you claim.
I would encourage you to not become a traitor because, in the past, the laws have been interpreted to rescind citizenship from traitors ~ and that could be done in the future ~ in which case your citizenship will not protect you.
I'm not even getting to "legislative intent" there's no need to as the law says it does not apply to citizens. That that prohibition is not repeated in every section of it is not significant.
I'm just talking about understanding a law. The debates by our representatives explains much of any law in language the average person can understand and make up his mind about it. That's why we have them.
Instead everyone goes to their favorite pressure group on the web and believes whatever they're told by them.
This is easy. Franklin was right about many things, but he was wrong about this. We all make temporary tradeoffs between liberty and freedom. We do this all the time on an individual basis, and we allow our government to do so as well, even in this free society.
There are many many instances throughout our history where during war time we have placed restrictions on due process in very limited circumstances. I'm sure we've erred from time to time, but there has been no slippery slope.
Slogans, like Franklin's, are cheap substitutes for rational thinking. I don't blame him. I blame those who would take his clever but narrowly framed assertion and apply it like so much whitewash. He might just as easily have said the converse--those who would give up their safety for some temporary liberty deserve neither. In today's world, with the threat posed by radical Islam, our liberty will certainly be temporary if we do not use every reasonable tool to defend ourselves.
Franklin was not speaking of a simple tradeoff between order and liberty ~ and simply cannot be expected to have engaged in such a piece of nonsense.
Show me where the government is prohibited from deeming a citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant." If it doesn't specifically say that it can't, then it should be nixed or fixed.
Show me where the law holds a distinction between these powers on persons seized on US soil v. those taken prisoner abroad, as a person lacking proof of citizenship could be held without habeas corpus by the same means (I can't wait until I have to have my chip else my citizenship becomes ambiguous).
Changing these provisions would have been VERY easy. That the legislation wasn't changed when the matter was brought up during floor debate makes reason for suspicion even more pertinent.
Would that it were so easy. We don't exactly make it difficult for those who want to do us in to become and/or breed citizens, these days, do we?
Maybe I should have suggested a "Stupidity of the Year Award for you?" Maybe you could estimate for us the percentage of Muslims HERE in the US, that you think could reasonable be part of a fifth column; and also the percentage of those with black hair that might be part of a fifth column. (Do guys with black hair have a book about killing infidels?)
I am hardly an FDR lover, but I think he did the right thing when he rounded up US citizens of Japanese origin here during WWII. We won that war, and your liberal buddies are upset. Let's not lose this one.
ML/NJ
The quote, as printed in 1759, is "Thoſe who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchaſe a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deſerve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY (smallcaps in original). Whether or not Franklin is responsible for the quote (a Google search suggests that it appears in a book he published but did not write, though it cites a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor) I do not believe the statement therein to be inaccurate.
There is a big difference between temporarily yielding non-essential liberties to ensure substantial continued safety, and surrendering altogether essential liberties for only a slight temporary benefit. That the former may be wise does not imply that the latter is not foolish.
Actually, you've got that totally wrong. We make it very easy for people to come here illegally and breed, but by comparison very difficult for decent people to gain citizenship via naturalization. Still, I would bet I've done far more than you researching the topic of anchor babies as Constitutionally illegitimate.
Maybe I should have suggested a "Stupidity of the Year Award for you?" Maybe you could estimate for us the percentage of Muslims HERE in the US, that you think could reasonable be part of a fifth column; and also the percentage of those with black hair that might be part of a fifth column. (Do guys with black hair have a book about killing infidels?)
Given the physical similarity of Mexicans and Muslims, you would prefer to dump Constitutional protections and build a massive police state bureaucracy while eliciting general insurrection? No thanks. I'll wear such an award from you with pride.
I am hardly an FDR lover, but I think he did the right thing when he rounded up US citizens of Japanese origin here during WWII. We won that war, and your liberal buddies are upset. Let's not lose this one.
I don't. The record shows that it turned out to be a waste of resources. I would, however, be fine with aggressive enforcement of sedition charges against anyone who prefers Sharia law versus Constitutional law along with empowerment of the militia to make arrests on such grounds.
Anyone who has difficulty telling a Mexican from a Muslim really should absent himself from these sort of discussions. When you see a group of guys standing in a group in the AM waiting to be pick up they're Mexicans. When you see women coming and going to nearly the same place they're Mexicans. When you hear them speaking Spanish, they're Mexicans. They only problem anyone can have with someone originally from Mexico is that he has violated our immigration laws to jump someone else's place on line to come to our country. And you know somthing, if that person he/she cut in front of was an Islamic Swine, he/she did us a big favor.
ML/NJ
You do know that there are Arabs who hang out in South America long enough to adopt the appearance, language, and mannerisms of Mexicans and then pay coyotes to come across the border?
What a putz. I'm done with you.
It isn't lying crap. If JPFO can interpret the law to include U.S. citizens, then so can some opportunistic politician or bureaucrat.
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.