Or should we have only investigated them after acts of sabotage and assasinations where there was direct "courtroom" proof of their guilt?
Why would you ask a question like that? What does it have to do with this case? Where would you get the idea that I think we shouldn't give "special attention" to people who are in this country on visas from suspected terrorist countries? Talk about a leap!
Or should we have only investigated them after acts of sabotage and assasinations where there was direct "courtroom" proof of their guilt?
Are you reading the same thread as I am commenting on? I have addressed comments by people who think that a man who is accused of rape has no rights whatsoever because he is from a middle eastern country. I didn't write the constitution, it gives everyone who is accused certain rights. If you don't like it , then attack the founders, not me.
This guy isn't being held as a terrorist, he is being charged with rape. If he is found guilty, I would be in favor of the highest possible punishment.
If he turns out to be a terrorist as well, then treat him as you would any other foreigner who is suspected of that. As far as that goes, it wouldn't bother me one iota to revoke the visas of anyone or any group of people who are here only with our permission. But that isn't the topic of this thread, at least it didn't start out that way, and surely not when I made my comments regarding constitutional protections and the rule of law.
You have leapt to a conclusion, that usually leads to an incorrect comment. As is the case with your post.