from 234,000 unique visitors and over 1.7 million page views.
Nowhere near the size of Drudge, of course,
but people from all over the nation flock to FR
for the latest breaking news and conservative viewpoints.
~ Jim.
April 20, 2013
Posted on 04/20/2013 12:55:08 PM PDT by yoe
Several Republican lawmakers are calling for the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings to be tried as an enemy combatant, rather than as an ordinary criminal.
“It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city,” read a Saturday statement from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). “The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans. The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.”
Their statement came after Dzhokar Tsarnaev was taken into custody and sent to the hospital Friday night.
[snip] “America is part of the battleground,” he said. “If you capture someone on the battleground, they should not be given the privilege of a civilian trial where they are given different rights...
[snip] “We continue to face threats from radical Islamists in small cells and large groups throughout the world,” they said. “They have, as their primary focus, killing as many Americans as possible, preferably within the United States. We must never lose sight of this fact and act appropriately within our laws and values.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
He should literally be drawn and quartered. Same for that “abortion doctor” who murdered all those live babies. But it’s not gonna happen.
No, that is not correct. The clause you speak of is in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
So if Lindsay Graham is all for treating a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant and denying him due process then why did he get his shorts in a twist about drone strikes and due process for U.S. citizens who were enemy combatants overseas?
I believe piracy is in the constitution as one of the federal crimes so I support efforts to fight it and apprehend such criminals under federal law (as long as its within internationally prescribed territorial waters).
That's great news. My best friend from high school must not really be dead.
It’s easy to be labeled a troll... as a newb I know im going to get it...
I’ve had it on this thread and of course previously.
My beliefs are not always going to be popular but I do think if we were more strict about what we let the Feds get away with things would be so much better :(
“”The man is technically a U.S. Citizen and he is in America. There are no grounds for ignoring due process rights.”
Sure there are. We are at war with Al Qaeda. If he can be linked to AQ, even through his brother, then he is a non-uniformed military combatant. He would have been waging war on US soil. Neither the Geneva Convention, nor due process would apply. He would be subject to the same rules as a Confederate sabotuer captured during the Civil War.”
Fair enough, Assuming even those “Civil War” rules are even constitutional.
Even though they may be "natural born," over time many babies will be born here as American citizens for the express purpose of committing Jihadist terror. Last I checked Nigeria and Turkey (as mentioned in the Wiki piece) are Islamic countries. Other Muslim "birth tourists" will no doubt see a new way of causing problems for us. Many will view American citizenship as a cynical joke.
I absolutely condemn ANY acts of terrorism and feel your pain but we musn’t allow raw emotion to rule our heads in these perilous times.
We must follow the laws. If we did it more often I would argue we’d be better off.
Can you tell me about your friend in a private message? I’d like to read a eulogy.
So you did know and you were just blathering B.S. and BTW if you wish to play that game then he Allegedly committed crimes under unconstitutional State Statutes. Because the State can't override the Constitution either. Yet you claimed its all a State matter and none of the Feds business.
Bottom line as the law now stands the Feds can charge him with several crimes so your blather amounts to the same outcome as the average Obama speech. All hat no cattle.
Yeah, but don't forget the Government was the people, or the Militia back then, they were just getting set up.
So as I said before What Washington needs is information regarding this man’s international contacts, they do not need the man himself.
I mentioned up thread that was a good case, maybe that's why they're hustling the Saudi connection guy out of the Country.
If they can make that connection, this becomes an act of war, imo.
I agree on the Law & Order comment, but throw too much “24” in for good measure. Who gets to decide whether he never meant it? I love the idea of going all Jack Bauer on him, but keep in mind who is running the show these days, and just how badly they wanted this to be a Tea Party activist. If we are a nation of laws and not men, then making it up as we go along is dangerous business.
8 USC § 1451 - Revocation of naturalization
(c) Membership in certain organizations; prima facie evidence If a person who shall have been naturalized after December 24, 1952 shall within five years next following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 1424 of this title, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization as having been obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
snip(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
So, yes, there is a way to do so...legally.
Most of what congress passes is not constitutionl.”
I don't disagree with that sentiment in general, however there are several problems to consider when applied to this situation in particular.
The first is that it should be obvious that this was a classic “act of terrorism” based solely on the targets. We don't even have to get into the motives, religion or any other factor involved. The target wasn't a government building or soldiers in a combat zone, it was a cowardly act directed toward American citizens in general designed to maim, kill and in general instill fear in all of us.
From that standpoint alone, I insist that the punishment be swift, painful and appropriate.
That's all he would get in MA. They did away with the death penalty in 1947. That has a lot to do with why there is a lot of clamoring for him to be tried by the Feds. And, since the guy is "white," Holder will see to it the book gets thrown at him before he spills any uncomfortable beans.
Im sorry I must have confused your Statement for the actual meanginfull clause Article 1 Section 8 clause 1:
“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;”
This clause includes those lines as qulifers for the forgoing enumerated powers.
The Preamble has no power whatsoever. A Preamble is simply a statements of intended propose & justification for the document.
The states - under the 10th amendment - can do whatever they want.
They constituted the Federal government and have a lot of power.
All those MA laws are constitutional.
I LOLed.
I agree the act was awful but no where in the constitution does it say ‘terrorism’ or prescribe that offense. Congress has (though illegally). MA probably has too. I’d argue the MA law is the one he should be brought to justice under.
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.