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 ...
OK. OK. I’m counting on you now.
The only Federal “crimes” he committed are Federal statutes passed by congress.
He did not allegedly commit any Federal crime under the Constitution unless Obama accuses him of Treason which there is a case for but the administration would need to make that case hold up in court.
Those Federal statutes he contravened are no more lawful than the Affordable Healthcare Act and every other piece of crap Congress passes on a near weekly basis.
They should be ignored and ridiculed by the States and the people but they won’t because Americans have been trained to be strangely obedient.
Although many conservatives are fighting back at the State level using the 10th amendment...
Google “10th amendment center” and help nullify some of the crap coming out of DC!
“Sure there are grounds. What is the point of the oath he just swore last year if he cannot be held accountable to it? He got citizenship under false pretenses, that would be my “grounds” for stripping him of it, and its cloak of protections.
I would agree with you if he was natural born and swore no oath, but that is not the case.”
I like your argument Empire...same goes for the Traitor in Chief...whether or not he swore to get ‘citizenship’, he swore twice on two Jan 20ths, four years apart. And he, in my opinion is not ‘natural born’...maybe not even a citizen.
Let me guess you supported Ron Paul.
Clinton became president with 36% of the vote did he not?
“The terrorist and enemy combatant committed federal crimes. What, you want him tried in a liberal toilet where he can’t get the needle?”
Well he committed his acts against the State of Massachusetts. Whether you call it terrorism or not doesn’t change the place and victim of the attack.
I have no problem with Massachusetts fumbling this. I only have a problem with Washington failing to go after the foreign origination that was ultimately behind this.
I supported nobody for president.
I did support his son Rand in 2010 along with Mike Lee and Ron Johnson.
That’s it.
I’m very careful with who I support.
Miss. Lindsey and McTraitor are every bit an “enemy combatant” as the Russian. They side with the enemy (democrats) every time their elbow bends and shyt all over the Consitution daily. Throw their sorry RINO asses in the same cell with the Russian.
Sorry, I just keep believing in what I always did. And what this country stood for- at least until recently.
Although I agree in theory that this guy is an enemy combatant, there is concern that by continuing to describe the entire country as a battleground and proclaiming that the war on terror is indeed here, BHO can then assume and execute war powers over the entire country... believe me we do NOT want to give him that power.
No, he had 43% and 47% IIRC.
Once again John, you are skirting your earlier claims that he (Hitler) was elected by the people for the people with some kind of majority vote....now you're trying to equate Clinton somehow.
Quite frankly, you're beginning to sound like a troll.
“OK. OK. I’m counting on you now.”
We are taking care of Graham, one of the most disgusting Senator worms. We’ve spent several million pounding that worm to the ground to drive his poll numbers down. We are succeeding. Graham will be primaried and lose.
Semper fi, buddy.
My point is valid and i’m not trolling you I promise.
Hitler’s party received a large amount of seats in the parliament and that forced the president to pick him as chancellor and form a coalition. From there he seized power.
A president in the United States can be technically elected with whatever vote share Hitler got.
The point is tyrants can come to power and that is why we need checks and balances which are found in Constitution which is truly an amazing document and even with all the abuse I condemn it is still a model for government today as it was in 1790.
No he cannot, we have a thingy called the "Electoral College" that prevents such things.
It has never happened in our history, and never will.
Gore was elected with a majority, but he didn't get the Electoral College, remember?
You must be very young, study some history!
You can be PC all you want. I say it as it is and I say he's a terrorist as was his brother. Now that must just about cripple your weak spine - I can almost hear 'the gasp'.
What stops them labeling you one and taking away your rights?
They already labeled me and took my rights AND YOURS away - that is if you are even in this country. For all I know you can be in some 'cell' somewhere.
And it's not the first time you have compared American citizens to this newly naturalized terrorists - earlier you used the Christian approach to intimidate - with 'hate group' as if Christians are in the same class as terrorists so we better be careful. You tactics don't work, newbie. Perhaps, you need another class or two from your mentors.
For the sake of the rule of law lets follow the constitution.
I'm not impressed with you tooting the Constitution. You act like it's 1776 and it's not. The PC crowd made sure of that - so your tooting the Constitution in this incident is for some other agenda. .
I understand. We speak as if what was still is and what is shouldn’t be. And that add PC to the mix - where you can’t say what is, you must speak to protect someone. And those not lovers of America for which it stands will remind us of it - along with hate speech and hate groups.
America is great that’s why terrorists/evil wants to take it down and we never know for sure, where - but we know for sure, they do. And liberalism sides with them. So they are allowed to ‘get within’ to pose as one of us.
I agree. If they take this asshat’s rights away from him, someday they will take them away from me.
This is not war in the legal sense, and we should be careful to define every successful criminal as a combatant. Eventually, nothing would be “non-war.” Where does one draw the line? The term War cannot be so cavalierly used.
Was the National Defense Authorization Act really in conformance with the Constitution? At least one court has said not. It authorizes the government to deny citizens the rights we have been given by God, merely because we are humans. What God has given us, the Legislature and the President cannot take away.
To argue that we may deny this criminal the Constitutional rights under which we have agreed to live is to deny the Constitution and the rule of law.
If it you take those rights from him, you will take them away from me.
Conservatism means to me the faithful honoring of the Constitution, as agreed to by our ancestors, as the social contract which limits the things the Government may do.
I object to some rule that says Obama and his ilk, or indeed anyone single person, have the authority to define a crime so as to exclude the operation of the Constitution.
This is the only thing that separates us from the dictatorships of the past. The rule of law cannot be made up as we go along according to the whims of those in power.
If this were a coordinated attack in declared war, I don’t have a problem with following a non-criminal process, and the courts have upheld that.
However, this was an American citizen on American soil, and like it or not, he needs what process is due under the Constitution.
Just my two cents. But we must be mindful of the direction we are heading, and be careful to not assist those who head us towards totalitarianism.
Besides, do we think we could not obtain a conviction, really?
What if I label you a terrorist to be whisked away to Gitmo?
Sorry i’m not going to allow the Feds that power. They’re lying, incompetent fools and their agencies are all unconstitutional.
My reference to Christians is based on fact. The Southern Poverty Law Center is labeling Christian organizations “hate groups”. That is one step away to calling them terrorists.
The MIAC report from 2009 suggested conservatives, libertarians and gun owners should be monitored and considered “dangerous”. They consider anyone “anti-government” i.e anti-Obama as “dangerous”. MIAC is one of those Department of Homeland Security “fusion” centers based in MO.
How does an electoral college theorectically stop someone with 36% of the vote share becoming president? They could win in a 3-4 way contest and take the college vote on a 30 odd percent split easily.
It can happen and probably will one day.
I want to make sure that whoever wins doesn’t think he’s a King who can do whatever he wants!
It happened in 1860.
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.