I disagree, he committed a crime in Massachusetts, they should try him there for the crime. 100+ accounts of assault + 4 accounts of murder.
The man is technically a U.S. Citizen and he is in America. There are no grounds for ignoring due process rights.
Agree 100%.
He should not even be tried under Federal law. I am the shocked the liberal hypocrites have not said anything about this.
He should he tried under MA law.
Obama’s prosecutors can now seek the death penalty in a state where it is banned.
Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.
Point this out to them.
“I disagree, he committed a crime in Massachusetts, they should try him there for the crime. 100+ accounts of assault + 4 accounts of murder.”
The Feds took jurisdiction because here in the People’s Republic we don’t have the death penalty.
“There are no grounds...”
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 TOTALLY agree. He should be treated no differently than if you or I did the very same thing.
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?
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.
Herbert Haupt was an American citizen who actually harmed nobody, yet was electrocuted.
Why does the young barbarian, a murder and mass-maimer, get better treatment?
I agree
Then let’s tack on the federal charges of denying someone the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that is what will be required to fry this a hole.
Horse manure.
The terrorist and enemy combatant committed federal crimes. What, you want him tried in a liberal toilet where he can't get the needle?
Go play in the street, Bunky.
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?
Concur your analysis.