Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are discussing the rights protected by the US Constitution, try to keep up.
The Constitution protects pre-existing rights of every person. The founders argued every person has those rights, regardless of where they live or what their govt. did to the contrary.
The Constitution protects pre-existing rights of every person. The founders argued every person has those rights, regardless of where they live or what their govt. did to the contrary.
But the Bill of Rights only applies to people who set foot on US soil.
The ENTIRE REASON those terrorists were sent to a prison camp at GITMO was to avoid having the Bill of Rights apply to people who never set foot on US soil.
Then they want to argue that the Constitution applies to them?
There's nothing right at all about someone being imprisoned for 9+ years without trial. It's a sick joke that people can claim to be defending freedom while behaving as any corrupt, authoritarian third world craphole behaves.
At this point anyone can be declared a "terrorist" and locked away. Or, Obama took it further, now Americans can be assassinated without trial...
I believe the answer is Yes. Obama didn't take it further. The right to arrest and detain people without legal representation that the Administration thinks are terrorist was asserted under the Bush administration. Including if the person is an American citizen arrested in America. The right to kill those expected of being terrorists, including Americans, was asserted and carried out by the Bush administration.
It's irrelevant really, the Bill of Rights simply lists pre-existing rights of every person, regardless of where they are...
Ridiculously wrong.
Do you NOT think that when the decision was made to send terrorists to GITMO anyone took into account the legality of that decision?
The amendment which applies to trials states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
So IF that applies to terrorists captured in Afghanistan for example, then the trial would have to be held in Afghanistan.
I believe the answer is Yes. Obama didn't take it further. The right to arrest and detain people without legal representation that the Administration thinks are terrorist was asserted under the Bush administration. Including if the person is an American citizen arrested in America. The right to kill those expected of being terrorists, including Americans, was asserted and carried out by the Bush administration.
Sorry....that's not true.
IF a terrorist is arrested in the USA (such as the underpants bomber or shoe bomber under Bush) then they are tried in the USA under US Law.
Illegal Combatants captured on the field of battle come under military code and if they never set foot on US soil, are tried by Military Tribunals.
Even during WWII, we captured German spies ON US SOIL and they were tried by a Military Tribunal. Some were sentenced to prison, and others were executed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You cannot hope to convince these kinds of lunatics otherwise. 