Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Oddball]

And what happens when innocent civilians are killed and members of the team that went in to apprehend him are killed because you refused to let the military use the proper tool for the job?

I have stated before and I will state it again, if he was in a place where capture was a reasonable possibility then we would have captured him. In this case, it was not. So we killed a member of a foreign entity that we were at war with. Exactly as we should be doing. This case is no different than the hundreds of other people we have killed in this war. His citizenship gives him no special protections when he is acting against us in a war.

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you seriously believe they are the same people? People who support the death penalty don't strike me as being overly concerned about whether an individual's rights, with the possible exception of their own, were violated in the process. Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.

Which leads me to ask when. where and from whom did America get the idea that we must stoop to the level of our enemy in order to prevail? Because such posture is certainly most unbecoming.

It's called due process and if they went through court and had a trial they got due process

Nor do I envision them being very sentimental about how Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Graib or are being treated at GITMO.

Not an American not my fucking concern, take them out back and shot them in the head.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. Interesting. So you're oh so concerned about adhering to the USC when it comes to Obama getting actual, confirmed members of AQ but it when it comes to prisoners who were actually captured - under Bush, it's screw the USC.
Yeah I guess that was predictible.

My concern is that the constitutional process for Americans is followed. and I had to say for Americans since some idiot liberals thinks everyubody in the world IS PROTECTED BY THE U.S. Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

no, i support the president in using the military to destroy military targets to include high level officials in the foreign enemies employ. That would include this individual.

Why is this so acceptable to do to people that are not us citizens but the minute that a citizen does it suddenly it is unacceptable?

what's to stop someone like alex jones (nutty that he is) from being declared such an "enemy of the state" and summarily executed?

nothing now

 

[bigrebnc1775]

abu ghraib, wire taps and git-mo didn't do a whole lot. During all that time, did i see obl taken out? Nope. Did i see al-rahman taken out? Nope. Al-awlaki? Nope. Wtf?
Now i see a president with a really bad domestic policy. Can i give him credit for blasting the shot out of aq? Yup.
But you can't. Party before country...

you really don't sound like you're a country before party person. Because if you were you would put the constitutional process ahead of everything else.

simply a difference of opinion. Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... And are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that civil liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
This is a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all of these suddenly liberal-minded conservatives don't have a valid point. They do.
I'm saying that we have had legal remedies for dealing with matters such as this, which we've employed for over 200 years.
Would you dispute that there are a lot of things in the usc which have exceptions?

no no no no and no fucking no.

 

[Liability]

And what happens when innocent civilians are killed and members of the team that went in to apprehend him are killed because you refused to let the military use the proper tool for the job?

I have stated before and I will state it again, if he was in a place where capture was a reasonable possibility then we would have captured him. In this case, it was not. So we killed a member of a foreign entity that we were at war with. Exactly as we should be doing. This case is no different than the hundreds of other people we have killed in this war. His citizenship gives him no special protections when he is acting against us in a war.

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

When one has an enemy in his sights on a battlefield and a pull of the trigger will terminate his right to life and due process, etc., one does not say, "Shit. I sure wish I had this fucker under indictment, tried and convicted and all appellate review completed!"

Enemies in time of war do not get "due process." (Or, perhaps , to state it differently, the "process" to which they are allegedly "due" is very much different than the process a criminal defendant is entitled to receive.)

Taking up arms against the United States, terrorism, war, etc., are NOT criminal law matters to which the Bill of Rights even pertains.

Hey Achmed, you filthy motherfucker, you have the right to remain dead.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And what happens when innocent civilians are killed and members of the team that went in to apprehend him are killed because you refused to let the military use the proper tool for the job?

I have stated before and I will state it again, if he was in a place where capture was a reasonable possibility then we would have captured him. In this case, it was not. So we killed a member of a foreign entity that we were at war with. Exactly as we should be doing. This case is no different than the hundreds of other people we have killed in this war. His citizenship gives him no special protections when he is acting against us in a war.

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

When one has an enemy in his sights on a battlefield and a pull of the trigger will terminate his right to life and due process, etc., one does not say, "Shit. I sure wish I had this fucker under indictment, tried and convicted and all appellate review completed!"

Enemies in time of war do not get "due process." (Or, perhaps , to state it differently, the "process" to which they are allegedly "due" is very much different than the process a criminal defendant is entitled to receive.)

Taking up arms against the United States, terrorism, war, etc., are NOT criminal law matters to which the Bill of Rights even pertains.

Hey Achmed, you filthy motherfucker, you have the right to remain dead.

What battlefield were they on?

 

[Amelia]

U.S. Government's position in 2009 & 2010:

It is okay to put an American citizen on a secret kill or capture list. If that list is leaked to the media, we'll say we're considering filing charges on him. Since the media is friendly to us, this will blow over soon. It is important that we kill him, at least the one named Awlaki, because if we capture him we might be embarrassed since we don't have enough evidence to convict.



Their position would be different now since the media climate has changed. But since they staked out their ground in 2010, they have to try to ride this out on the terms they established then.

Fortunately for them, a majority of America is fine with that since the target was Awlaki and not someone they sympathize with.




Does anyone here know the names of the other Americans on our government's hit lists? I'm trying to search for them but having trouble coming up with the correct search terms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

U.S. Government's position in 2009 & 2010:

It is okay to put an American citizen on a secret kill or capture list. If that list is leaked to the media, we'll say we're considering filing charges on him. Since the media is friendly to us, this will blow over soon. It is important that we kill him, at least the one named Awlaki, because if we capture him we might be embarrassed since we don't have enough evidence to convict.



Their position would be different now since the media climate has changed. But since they staked out their ground in 2010, they have to try to ride this out on the terms they established then.

Fortunately for them, a majority of America is fine with that since the target was Awlaki and not someone they sympathize with.




Does anyone here know the names of the other Americans on our government's hit lists? I'm trying to search for them but having trouble coming up with the correct search terms.

Those who have spoken out against obama are on a watch list, but I don't know if they've been moved to the hit list yet.

 

[Oddball]

And what happens when innocent civilians are killed and members of the team that went in to apprehend him are killed because you refused to let the military use the proper tool for the job?

I have stated before and I will state it again, if he was in a place where capture was a reasonable possibility then we would have captured him. In this case, it was not. So we killed a member of a foreign entity that we were at war with. Exactly as we should be doing. This case is no different than the hundreds of other people we have killed in this war. His citizenship gives him no special protections when he is acting against us in a war.

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

When one has an enemy in his sights on a battlefield and a pull of the trigger will terminate his right to life and due process, etc., one does not say, "Shit. I sure wish I had this fucker under indictment, tried and convicted and all appellate review completed!"

Enemies in time of war do not get "due process." (Or, perhaps , to state it differently, the "process" to which they are allegedly "due" is very much different than the process a criminal defendant is entitled to receive.)

Taking up arms against the United States, terrorism, war, etc., are NOT criminal law matters to which the Bill of Rights even pertains.

Hey Achmed, you filthy motherfucker, you have the right to remain dead.

As I asked before, what's to stop a guy like Alex Jones, or some other nut job that might get reported to Attack Watch, from being declared such an "enemy of the state"?

What's to stop people you loathe from defining who the "filthy motherfucker" is tomorrow, or next week, or next year, and summarily executing them?

 

[Valerie]

And what happens when innocent civilians are killed and members of the team that went in to apprehend him are killed because you refused to let the military use the proper tool for the job?

I have stated before and I will state it again, if he was in a place where capture was a reasonable possibility then we would have captured him. In this case, it was not. So we killed a member of a foreign entity that we were at war with. Exactly as we should be doing. This case is no different than the hundreds of other people we have killed in this war. His citizenship gives him no special protections when he is acting against us in a war.

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

Judge Mohsen Allwan ordered police to find al-Awlaki after the American-born cleric failed to appear at his trial for his role in killing a Frenchman.

The country was under pressure to crack down on its Al Qaeda offshoot, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, since the group took responsibility Friday for a failed attempt to send bombs to U.S. addresses.
Anwar al-Awlaki, radical Muslim cleric, wanted 'dead or alive' in Yemen after judge's order




A notorious Al Qaeda explosives expert who turned his own brother into a human bomb was among those killed in a successful U.S. terrorist strike in Yemen.

Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri - whose fingerprints were found on the deadly device concocted for the 2009 "Underwear Bomber" - was the key bombmaker for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

The 29-year-old native of Saudi Arabia was riding Friday in a convoy with firebrand Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Al Qaeda propaganda chief Samir Khan when U.S. forces killed all three.

Al-Asiri was involved in a pair of bomb plots against the U.S. - the attempt to take down a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day 2009, and the shipment of two explosive-laden printers last year from Yemen to U.S. addresses.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...a_loses_merciless_bombmaker_in_us_attack.html

 

[Oddball]

And what happens when innocent civilians are killed and members of the team that went in to apprehend him are killed because you refused to let the military use the proper tool for the job?

I have stated before and I will state it again, if he was in a place where capture was a reasonable possibility then we would have captured him. In this case, it was not. So we killed a member of a foreign entity that we were at war with. Exactly as we should be doing. This case is no different than the hundreds of other people we have killed in this war. His citizenship gives him no special protections when he is acting against us in a war.

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

Judge Mohsen Allwan ordered police to find al-Awlaki after the American-born cleric failed to appear at his trial for his role in killing a Frenchman.

The country was under pressure to crack down on its Al Qaeda offshoot, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, since the group took responsibility Friday for a failed attempt to send bombs to U.S. addresses.
Anwar al-Awlaki, radical Muslim cleric, wanted 'dead or alive' in Yemen after judge's order




A notorious Al Qaeda explosives expert who turned his own brother into a human bomb was among those killed in a successful U.S. terrorist strike in Yemen.

Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri - whose fingerprints were found on the deadly device concocted for the 2009 "Underwear Bomber" - was the key bombmaker for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

The 29-year-old native of Saudi Arabia was riding Friday in a convoy with firebrand Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Al Qaeda propaganda chief Samir Khan when U.S. forces killed all three.

Al-Asiri was involved in a pair of bomb plots against the U.S. - the attempt to take down a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day 2009, and the shipment of two explosive-laden printers last year from Yemen to U.S. addresses.
Al Qaeda loses merciless bombmaker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri in U.S. attack in Yemen

OK...Since when is the American military charged with policing the streets and enforcing the court orders of Yemen?

 

[Liability]

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

When one has an enemy in his sights on a battlefield and a pull of the trigger will terminate his right to life and due process, etc., one does not say, "Shit. I sure wish I had this fucker under indictment, tried and convicted and all appellate review completed!"

Enemies in time of war do not get "due process." (Or, perhaps , to state it differently, the "process" to which they are allegedly "due" is very much different than the process a criminal defendant is entitled to receive.)

Taking up arms against the United States, terrorism, war, etc., are NOT criminal law matters to which the Bill of Rights even pertains.

Hey Achmed, you filthy motherfucker, you have the right to remain dead.

As I asked before, what's to stop a guy like Alex Jones, or some other nut job that might get reported to Attack Watch, from being declared such an "enemy of the state"?

What's to stop people you loathe from defining who the "filthy motherfucker" is tomorrow, or next week, or next year, and summarily executing them?

You, as always, ask very good questions.

This is why I have tried to make it as plain as possible that I really do "get" where you are coming from.

Your concern is a fundamental one.

But I suppose my answer (at least in part) is that if we have reached a point where any President and/or any collective bunch of CIA officials are so indifferent to the validity of the concerns about who belongs on such lists, then we have much bigger problems.

If "they" were to put some mere asshole (but not a true terrorist or enemy leader) on such a "list" with no valid basis for doing so, then even WITH Congressional or Judicial "oversight" we'd never be safe from such people, anyway. For, in the latter event, what would prevent such creatures from just presenting fictionalized "intel" to the Congressional oversight committees or to the Courts?

I believe that at some point we have to have some faith in the people we have placed in positions of trust and authority.

 

[Valerie]

October 30th 2010

Terror fighters were not surprised to learn that the latest reputed Al Qaeda plot originated in Yemen.

The Middle Eastern nation has become a chief worry for U.S. counterterror officials with the rise of the increasingly powerful Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula franchise.

The Osama Bin Laden offshoot is considered his strongest cell outside of Afghanistan. Bin Laden's biggest mouthpiece in Yemen is the radicalized religious man Anwar al-Awlaki.


The American-born Awlaki, whose hate speech and anti-U.S. diatribes clutter the Internet, has inspired several plots against his native country. He and his AQAP cronies fueled the accused Fort Hood assassin, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan.

They inspired failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, who also had operational ties to the lawless Al Qaeda-dominated region of Pakistan.

Awlaki and his terror thugs also crafted the plot for wanna-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound jet on Christmas last year.

"All they need is one willing operative with the capability of concealing explosives and the intent to aim it against the homeland," a U.S. intelligence official said yesterday.

AQAP caused mayhem for years in Saudi Arabia before relocating to Yemen, where it has kidnapped and murdered tourists.
Yemen: UPS bomb plot puts spotlight on Al Qaeda's newest terror cesspool

 

[Oddball]

When one has an enemy in his sights on a battlefield and a pull of the trigger will terminate his right to life and due process, etc., one does not say, "Shit. I sure wish I had this fucker under indictment, tried and convicted and all appellate review completed!"

Enemies in time of war do not get "due process." (Or, perhaps , to state it differently, the "process" to which they are allegedly "due" is very much different than the process a criminal defendant is entitled to receive.)

Taking up arms against the United States, terrorism, war, etc., are NOT criminal law matters to which the Bill of Rights even pertains.

Hey Achmed, you filthy motherfucker, you have the right to remain dead.

As I asked before, what's to stop a guy like Alex Jones, or some other nut job that might get reported to Attack Watch, from being declared such an "enemy of the state"?

What's to stop people you loathe from defining who the "filthy motherfucker" is tomorrow, or next week, or next year, and summarily executing them?

You, as always, ask very good questions.

This is why I have tried to make it as plain as possible that I really do "get" where you are coming from.

Your concern is a fundamental one.

But I suppose my answer (at least in part) is that if we have reached a point where any President and/or any collective bunch of CIA officials are so indifferent to the validity of the concerns about who belongs on such lists, then we have much bigger problems.

If "they" were to put some mere asshole (but not a true terrorist or enemy leader) on such a "list" with no valid basis for doing so, then even WITH Congressional or Judicial "oversight" we'd never be safe from such people, anyway. For, in the latter event, what would prevent such creatures from just presenting fictionalized "intel" to the Congressional oversight committees or to the Courts?

I believe that at some point we have to have some faith in the people we have placed in positions of trust and authority.

Fuck that shit.

You want the same assholes who have perpetrated Waco, Ruby Ridge, the arms-for-hostages-for-cocaine scam, fast and furious, ad nauseum, to now be trusted to deem who is suitable for summary execution and who is not?

I don't fucking think so....Don't even make me go Godwin.

 

[Liability]

As I asked before, what's to stop a guy like Alex Jones, or some other nut job that might get reported to Attack Watch, from being declared such an "enemy of the state"?

What's to stop people you loathe from defining who the "filthy motherfucker" is tomorrow, or next week, or next year, and summarily executing them?

You, as always, ask very good questions.

This is why I have tried to make it as plain as possible that I really do "get" where you are coming from.

Your concern is a fundamental one.

But I suppose my answer (at least in part) is that if we have reached a point where any President and/or any collective bunch of CIA officials are so indifferent to the validity of the concerns about who belongs on such lists, then we have much bigger problems.

If "they" were to put some mere asshole (but not a true terrorist or enemy leader) on such a "list" with no valid basis for doing so, then even WITH Congressional or Judicial "oversight" we'd never be safe from such people, anyway. For, in the latter event, what would prevent such creatures from just presenting fictionalized "intel" to the Congressional oversight committees or to the Courts?

I believe that at some point we have to have some faith in the people we have placed in positions of trust and authority.

Fuck that shit.

You want the same assholes who have perpetrated Waco, Ruby Ridge, the arms-for-hostages-for-cocaine scam, fast and furious, ad nauseum, to now be trusted to deem who is suitable for summary execution and who is not?

I don't fucking think so....Don't even make me go Godwin.

Well, so much for rational discussion, I guess.



Still: if you are contending (as it seems you are) that because some government officials have acted atrociously (which I deem an irrefutable and incontestable FACT), that it necessarily follows that we can never trust any government officials without implementing an assortment of institutionalized checks and balances, I am in PARTIAL agreement.

However, there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that a rogue government agency bent of doing something Orwellian (as you have envisioned) could accomplish it without the checks and balances you want to put up in either of two ways: (1) they could simply ignore the checks and balances, DO the nefarious acts, then lie their asses off and cover up (on the theory that if you're gonna commit official murder, you aren't likely to be overly concerned with coverups and lying) or (2) they could present falsified "intel" to "justify" their conduct in advance (thereby getting the official stamp of approval from the Congressional oversight committee or the courts as the case may be).

If we have officials in office willing to commit official murder without valid justification, then neither one of those two options seems all that difficult for them to also contemplate and accomplish.

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

 

[Amelia]

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

That is why we draw a bright line and hold people accountable for crossing it even when it doesn't seem too serious.

To stop people from getting careless and tempted and feeling immune from consequence. Most people don't start out wanting to be Orwellian and Machiavellian - those who would start out that way would probably be sifted out by our various vetting processes - but people can turn if we don't keep them on their toes.

So we need to keep them on their toes. But right now we're looking the other way.

Don't let the U.S. government seem to be a place where people with those temptations can hide out and do their dirty work with impunity.



I hope the ACLU will stay on the case and use their resources to make a loud noise.

 

[Liability]

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

That is why we draw a bright line and hold people accountable for crossing it even when it doesn't seem too serious.

To stop people from getting careless and tempted and feeling immune from consequence. Most people don't start out wanting to be Orwellian and Machiavellian - those who would start out that way would probably be sifted out by our various vetting processes - but people can turn if we don't keep them on their toes.

So we need to keep them on their toes. But right now we're looking the other way.

Don't let the U.S. government seem to be a place where people with those temptations can hide out and do their dirty work with impunity.



I hope the ACLU will stay on the case and use their resources to make a loud noise.

So, we hold the government officials who break the law accountable? Except, of course, when we don't.

there's a pretty bright line about paying your taxes, too. The failure to do that didn't seem to hamper the Obama Administration from getting Timmy Giethner a job as the HEAD of the fucking Department that includes the very tax collectors we're talking about.

The POINT is that if the government official or agency is bent of snuffing some poor slob for other than the legitimate reasons, then having checks and balances in place that require lawful "reporting" to the other branch will not present a whole lot of deterrence to such conduct.

And if you INSIST that the other Branch(es) must have such oversight (for purposes of checks and balances) you are really just putting faith in the process anyway. Does it make a LOT of sense to say, "We don't trust you to use valid judgment as to whom may be placed on a Kill or Capture list since you might behave kind of criminally; but we DO trust you to honestly report your decision making process and factors to Congress of a Judge?" Why? Because the fear of committing perjury is more devastating than the fear of committing murder?

 

[Amelia]

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

That is why we draw a bright line and hold people accountable for crossing it even when it doesn't seem too serious.

To stop people from getting careless and tempted and feeling immune from consequence. Most people don't start out wanting to be Orwellian and Machiavellian - those who would start out that way would probably be sifted out by our various vetting processes - but people can turn if we don't keep them on their toes.

So we need to keep them on their toes. But right now we're looking the other way.

Don't let the U.S. government seem to be a place where people with those temptations can hide out and do their dirty work with impunity.



I hope the ACLU will stay on the case and use their resources to make a loud noise.

So, we hold the government officials who break the law accountable? Except, of course, when we don't.

there's a pretty bright line about paying your taxes, too. The failure to do that didn't seem to hamper the Obama Administration from getting Timmy Giethner a job as the HEAD of the fucking Department that includes the very tax collectors we're talking about.

The POINT is that if the government official or agency is bent of snuffing some poor slob for other than the legitimate reasons, then having checks and balances in place that require lawful "reporting" to the other branch will not present a whole lot of deterrence to such conduct.

And if you INSIST that the other Branch(es) must have such oversight (for purposes of checks and balances) you are really just putting faith in the process anyway. Does it make a LOT of sense to say, "We don't trust you to use valid judgment as to whom may be placed on a Kill or Capture list since you might behave kind of criminally; but we DO trust you to honestly report your decision making process and factors to Congress of a Judge?" Why? Because the fear of committing perjury is more devastating than the fear of committing murder?

We have to keep trying. We have to stay vigilant.

Too much looking the other way.




Less looking the other way than there was two years ago.



But still too much.



We have to keep trying.

 

[IndependntLogic]

you really don't sound like you're a country before party person. Because if you were you would put the constitutional process ahead of everything else.

simply a difference of opinion. Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... And are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that civil liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
This is a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all of these suddenly liberal-minded conservatives don't have a valid point. They do.
I'm saying that we have had legal remedies for dealing with matters such as this, which we've employed for over 200 years.
Would you dispute that there are a lot of things in the usc which have exceptions?

no no no no and no fucking no.

Um yeah. Exactly the level of independent thought and reasoning, I might have expected from the mind-controlled.

So let's just go with the last "f-ing no".

There is never an exception to freedom of speech?
Right to bear arms?
How about that religious freedom? YOur position is that Sharia law should take precedent over US Law? Didn't think so. Me either.
How about citizenship? You're all for anchor-babies?
Hey how about that kiddie porn as freedom of the press! You love that idea?

Your assertation that there are never exceptions to rights guaranteed by the USC displays willing ignorance of the obvious, when it doesn't support your political agenda.
Not surprising.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

simply a difference of opinion. Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... And are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that civil liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
This is a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all of these suddenly liberal-minded conservatives don't have a valid point. They do.
I'm saying that we have had legal remedies for dealing with matters such as this, which we've employed for over 200 years.
Would you dispute that there are a lot of things in the usc which have exceptions?

no no no no and no fucking no.

Um yeah. Exactly the level of independent thought and reasoning, I might have expected from the mind-controlled.

So let's just go with the last "f-ing no".

There is never an exception to freedom of speech?
Right to bear arms?
How about that religious freedom? YOur position is that Sharia law should take precedent over US Law? Didn't think so. Me either.
How about citizenship? You're all for anchor-babies?
Hey how about that kiddie porn as freedom of the press! You love that idea?

Your assertation that there are never exceptions to rights guaranteed by the USC displays willing ignorance of the obvious, when it doesn't support your political agenda.
Not surprising.

I was wrong nobody's rights are protected. Not your's not mine no ones