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

Skip to comments.

Convicted terrorist sues U.S. attorney general
CNN ^ | 5-10-02 | Phil Hirschkorn

Posted on 05/11/2002 11:46:03 AM PDT by tallhappy

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Teacher317
"However, when they are released from prison, their right to defend themselves, including with a gun, should be restored with all of their other rights."

You feel that way about Ow - OWIE? You would put a gun in his hands so that he can defend himself from us, should he ever be let out of prison - which, thank heaven, he won't???

21 posted on 05/11/2002 6:43:49 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Oh really which ones are they?
22 posted on 05/11/2002 6:46:13 PM PDT by DWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
"(Yes, I am aware that those in prison have been convicted of something already... that does not mean that their every action forevermore will be an illegal one. The guards do not have the right to monitor their conversations, no matter how vile and heinous the dirt-bag might be.)"

You haven't spent much time studying the enormous, organized crime ring which is modern terrorism, OR Arab culture, have you. (Question mark intentionally left out)

23 posted on 05/11/2002 6:51:04 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Apparently you haven't studied the Constitution much. You are assuming that anyone suspected of terrorist ties is actually a terrorist, that the job of police is to stop crimes before they happen, and that those who are suspected of being criminals have different rights than those who are not. You are wrong on all 3 counts.

I am all for punishing those who commit heinous acts, and I'm all for protecting American lives as best we can, but we need to follow the Constitution to do so, otherwise we're heading for some even worse consequences than terrorism: tyrrany... where the government itself is the terrorist, and the citizens are helpless to defend themselves. We lost 100 million people that way in the 20th Century. I hope we'll be able to avoid that in the 21st.

24 posted on 05/11/2002 8:03:57 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DWC
Not to name any names, but if you look back through the comments on this thread, you should be able to spot three or four.
25 posted on 05/11/2002 8:15:20 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
A convicted felon forfeits rights accruing to an American citizen. Period.

So we can kill every convicted felon, since he has no right to life? We can use some really cruel and unusual punishments on them, since you just declared their rights forfeit? They lose their rights to see their families, visitors, or lawyers? They lose their right to appeal their conviction? They lose the right to eat?

No, they don't. In other words, the above statement is incorrect. Period.

You also expanded my statement in a classic straw-man argument. Those in prison do not have the right to bear arms. They do lose their right to Liberty, for a specific period of time. However, when they are released from prison, their right to defend themselves, including with a gun, should be restored with all of their other rights.

Actually you are the one setting up straw men. Reread my statement. C-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

I said "A convicted felon forfeits rights accruing to an American citizen. Period."

Your argument changes my statement to "A convicted felon forfeits ALL rights accruing to an American citizen. Period."

That is not what I said, and that certainly is not what I meant. Save the sophistry for your students. A prisoner loses rights. A prisoner loses rights to bear arms, to order his own life, to dress as he wishes, to read what he wishes, to eat what he wishes, to privacy.

There is a loooong body of case law and precident that supports that.

For that matter, what Constitutional Amendment enumerates a right to privacy? The First? That guarantees the right to freedom of press, speech, assembly, and religion. (And courts have long ruled that prisoners forefeit some of those). The last? That covers Presidential succession. Perhaps one somewhere in the middle? If so, which one? Be specific, Teach.

And remember, the Fourth only covers unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have given a pretty broad latitude as to what constitutes reasonable in the pen. A man's home is his castle. The courts have upheld that many times. But a prison cell is not a home.

26 posted on 05/11/2002 9:10:12 PM PDT by No Truce With Kings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Why should we fear enemies like like Islamic terrorists, when seemingly never-ending packs of jackel lawyers are around to gladly flush America down the toilet....

However, even for that there will be a fee.

27 posted on 05/11/2002 9:39:40 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
because al-'Owhali's command of English is very limited, and the government won't allow a translator

Wouldnt this also be a violation of the Constitutional right to counsel? If the US wishes to have its own translator on the line to be sure no attack orders are sneaked out, fine. But until the fat lady has sung the last note on his case, he still has as much a Constitutional right to counsel as you or I.

28 posted on 05/11/2002 10:06:17 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

What case are you referring to?

He was tried and convicted, sentenced and is serving. There is no case.

29 posted on 05/12/2002 12:44:29 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
The issue is still up for court argument... should he be executed or just stay in jail. If that is not a 'case' then what is it?
30 posted on 05/12/2002 1:18:35 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Oh. They got past this, or the government dropped the request for execution? Also all appeals exhausted yet?
31 posted on 05/12/2002 1:20:36 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Those subject to this act are an extremely small number. I believe the article mentioned fewer than 20. As I understand this, one must petition the court and present compelling evidence that using the lawyer for communications related to future terrorist activities is highly likely before such monitoring may take place. I believe this constitutes sufficient safeguard. Just like all rights, their are tradeoffs. No right is inviolate or unlimited. Why should the attorney client priviledge be any different?
32 posted on 05/12/2002 4:12:34 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
"You are assuming that anyone suspected of terrorist ties is actually a terrorist, that the job of police is to stop crimes before they happen, and that those who are suspected of being criminals have different rights than those who are not. You are wrong on all 3 counts."

Nothing suspected here dude! The operative concept in this situation is CONVICTED terrorist. His rights to continue his reign of terror are constitutionally restricted, as they should be on all moral and legal grounds.

33 posted on 05/12/2002 4:51:52 AM PDT by sinclair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
A court has to approve for it to be done without notice.

Federalist Society discussion of the rule.

A critique by an opponent of the rule:
Commission on Law and Social Action

34 posted on 05/12/2002 7:13:11 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
...someone can explain to me why a person's private conversations should be monitored by our nanny-state.

Can you explain to me why our nanny-state has to provide for private phone conversations for prisoners?

Prisoners are allowed private conversations with their lawyers -- in person. I don't know of any government supplied private phones being around for prisoners in 1776. It is you who wants the government to be the nanny -- "give me a private phone conversation big goverment" said the convict, much to the delight of Teacher317.

35 posted on 05/12/2002 10:26:37 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I'm for the law as long as the information can't be used against the guy in court. That would be a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment, and though I don't give a rat's --s about this terrorist scumbag, I care deeply about the Constitution.

I believe only private conversations between a lawyer and a client can not be used against the client in court. Government supplied phones -- as advertised -- are not private. Anybody hearing these conversations should be allowed to use the evidence in court. If a lawyer and a convict have a conversation on live TV, the evidence from that conversation could still be used against the convict.

The lawyer and the convict can still have private protected conversations -- in person -- in a private room!

36 posted on 05/12/2002 10:44:22 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
I am all for punishing those who commit heinous acts, and I'm all for protecting American lives as best we can, but we need to follow the Constitution to do so...

Show me where the Constitution mentions private phone conversations between lawyer and convict.

37 posted on 05/12/2002 10:50:21 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
The guards do not have the right to monitor their conversations

Yes we do.

38 posted on 05/12/2002 10:54:06 AM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Those in prison do not have the right to bear arms. They do lose their right to Liberty, for a specific period of time. However, when they are released from prison, their right to defend themselves, including with a gun, should be restored with all of their other rights.

A criminal punnishment of a "Life Without Guns", as long as it is not cruel and unusual(current law) is Constitutional.

39 posted on 05/12/2002 10:57:33 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Oh. They got past this, or the government dropped the request for execution? Also all appeals exhausted yet?

I am pretty sure that case is settled.

It is the inmate (his lawyers rather) now deciding to sue.

40 posted on 05/12/2002 2:25:22 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next 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