Granting Abdulmutallab U.S. citizen rights will cost lives

[B_VinylBoy]

People such as yourself, Vinyl, Phil Ayesho feel compelled to sit idly by while innocent people stand to die a premature death.

You're stupid if you're going to run to such extremes with that.
Nobody is downplaying the loss of innocent life here, even if you want to exploit that very fact for your own harbored beliefs regarding foreigners who commit terrorists acts and your beliefs surrounding torture (and that's precisely where this all leads to). This is also about you and your twisted belief that now, after all of the terrorists that have been caught, arrested and tried through our court system with no altercation or issue, our handling of terrorists need to change. You, nor can anyone else opposing our administration for this very tactic can come up with anything that makes ANY kind of sense. But you can write a great script for a Lifetime Movie if they were interested in a pseudo-political drama.

So, are you going to stop pretending that you care more about the lives of innocent people than someone else and answer these questions honestly? Or do you need to launch more distorted comments, trying to put words into the mouths of your opponents that not only fail to make you look more compassionate, but to address REAL the issue at hand?

 

[B_Nick4444]

Every SIX WEEKS the same number of American killed on 9/11, die driving on our roads.
Every six weeks the same number dies of gun violence.

Every six weeks the same number die from lack of health insurance.

that's why a great deal of effort and money is spent on trying to ameliorate or prevent these incidences

why should we not try to prevent incidents of terrorism?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

that's why a great deal of effort and money is spent on trying to ameliorate or prevent these incidences

why should we not try to prevent incidents of terrorism?

They are trying to prevent them. You just don't approve of our Nation using civilized methods to do so. And why is that?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

that's why a great deal of effort and money is spent on trying to ameliorate or prevent these incidences

why should we not try to prevent incidents of terrorism?

Okay-
What you are suggesting would mean that we should put a breathyzler on the door of EVERY bar and Imprison everyone leaving the bar whose Blood Alcohol is above the legal limit

WITHOUT due process.
WITHOUT a lawyer.
And hold them as long as we please with NO evidence.

Because, if we were to address driving deaths the way YOU suggest we address terrorism, we would do so by abridging the civil rights of drinkers.


Or, hey, Let's apply your idiotic and fraidy cat approach to Gun violence...

And, like Bush did with habeus corpis, just overwrite the entire second amendment and start taking away your guns...


What? you don't LIKE the idea of having YOUR rights abridged to address the fact that it is AMERICANS SHOOTING AMERICANS with guns and American Killing Americans with cars?

And, HEY... yeah... since we lose 8.6 TIMES as many Americans to Cars and 8.6 times as many to guns... then, by your logic, we should be spending 17.2 times as much money fighting these two scourges as we spend fighting terrorism...right?

YEah... destroy our military thru depletion and over-deployment, kill hundreds of thousands of the WORNG people, and bankrupt our nation chasing after, AND NOT CAPTURING, TWO GUYS.


You WIN against an adversary by DENYING them their objective.

Terrorists seek publicity, to get an entire nation to react fearfully to what really amounts to very minor events, to get a major nation to bankrupt itself spending vast amounts of money to try and defend against a tactic that does very little real damage.

When you react fearfully like that, Nick, you are SUCCUMBING to terrorism.
Congratulations... you're easily frightened. And easily manipulated by your enemy into reacting precisely the way they hope you will react.


And you're still 3,000 times more likely to die driving to work than to be killed in a terrorist attack.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Okay-
What you are suggesting would mean that we should put a breathyzler on the door of EVERY bar and Imprison everyone leaving the bar whose Blood Alcohol is above the legal limit

WITHOUT due process.
WITHOUT a lawyer.
And hold them as long as we please with NO evidence.

Again, a U.S. citizen should be afforded due process. Our government, rightly, should grant rights to its citizens.

A non-U.S. citizen, member of Al Queda that attempted to murder 300 people is in a different camp. He is an insurgent, an enemy, an attacker of the U.S. You cannot draw parallels between the two, no matter how loud you scream.

YEah... destroy our military thru depletion and over-deployment, kill hundreds of thousands of the WORNG people, and bankrupt our nation chasing after, AND NOT CAPTURING, TWO GUYS.

Al Queda and Taliban are down to two guys? That's news to me. Islamic fundamentalists and extemists that are training to kill Americans are down to two guys?

You WIN against an adversary by DENYING them their objective.

Terrorists seek publicity, to get an entire nation to react fearfully to what really amounts to very minor events, to get a major nation to bankrupt itself spending vast amounts of money to try and defend against a tactic that does very little real damage.

please explain how 'little real damage' it is to the families of the victims of 9/11. Let's see, its the worst in U.S. History.

What is 'big' damage to you, Phil? Taking out all of New England?

When you react fearfully like that, Nick, you are SUCCUMBING to terrorism.
Congratulations... you're easily frightened. And easily manipulated by your enemy into reacting precisely the way they hope you will react.


And you're still 3,000 times more likely to die driving to work than to be killed in a terrorist attack.

No, you are 'succumbing' to terrorism when you ignore it and give up. Under you're scenario, we may as well abandon TSA and stop screening at the airliines. It infringes on our rights.

Let's just roll out a red carpet for another terrorist attack. Meaningless as you believe they are.

 

[HazelGod]

every six weeks the same number dies of gun violence.

lol wut?

 

[vince]

lol wut?

No laughing matter.
Phil may be correct.

The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > An Accounting of Daily Gun Deaths

In 2004, 81 per day people were killed by firearms in the USA. Multiplied by 42, equals 3402 deaths every six weeks. 29,565 in 2004. That would be about 236,000 gun related deaths since 9/11.

In addition 176 people were injured by bullets every day. That's another 7392 every six weeks. 64240 in 2004, or about 513,000 since 9/11.

 

[HazelGod]

You realize that 50-70% of reported gun deaths in this country are suicides, right? To characterize a suicide as "gun violence" seems a little disingenuous to me.

Phil was spot-on with the rest of his post, but that little statistical nugget is so much hornswaggle, it just had to be laughed at.

 

[vince]

Fine, I realize that gun ownership is one of the American holy of holies and I never engage in debate about it.

If it takes twelve weeks instead of six weeks to reach 3000 plus dead, Phil's point about what is or is not a threat to the safety of Americans and what to legally do about it is still spot on.

He is also right about the chicken little attitude of starinvestor and Nick4444 and their willingness to throw the baby out with the constitutional bathwater.

 

[ericbythebay]

Abstinence only doesn't work, what we need is better gun education in this country.

I'd like to see a breakdown of gun deaths and guns per capita. I suspect most gun deaths are urban and most gun ownership is rural. Guns are just a proxy for other underlying problems. Treating the symptom won't cure the disease.

 

[B_starinvestor]

He is also right about the chicken little attitude of starinvestor and Nick4444 and their willingness to throw the baby out with the constitutional bathwater.

NOT giving a murderous terrorist a primrose diagram to assembling an all-star legal team is hardly a constitutoinal breach.

 

[vince]

Yes it is.

 

[B_starinvestor]

No it isn't.


Under Section 8:

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Also, under Section 9.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

 

[mitchymo]

No it isn't.


Under Section 8:

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Also, under Section 9.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

But this case is neither a rebellion or invasion?

 

[B_starinvestor]

But this case is neither a rebellion or invasion?

Main Entry: re·bel·lion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈbel-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

Clearly, Al-Queda is in opposition to U.S. authority and dominance.

Also:

Main Entry: in·va·sion
Pronunciation: \in-ˈvā-zhən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English invasioune, from Anglo-French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade
Date: 15th century
1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army[URL]http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif[/URL] for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful



Clearly the incoming of something hurtful.

I honestly don't even see how it is debatable.

 

[mitchymo]

Main Entry: re·bel·lion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈbel-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

Clearly, Al-Queda is in opposition to U.S. authority and dominance.

Also:

Main Entry: in·va·sion
Pronunciation: \in-ˈvā-zhən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English invasioune, from Anglo-French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade
Date: 15th century
1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an armyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful



Clearly the incoming of something hurtful.

I honestly don't even see how it is debatable.

You are being exceptionally loose with the definitions when applying them. A rebellion is clearly carried out from the inside not from a passenger flying into the country and an invasion requires substancially more than 1 person.
Many definitions are plyable but the general social understanding is that this case is a terrorist case not a rebellion nor invasion. You are just using the definitions in the broadest possible sense to fit the case into the 'qualification criteria'.

 

[B_starinvestor]

You are being exceptionally loose with the definitions when applying them. A rebellion is clearly carried out from the inside not from a passenger flying into the country and an invasion requires substancially more than 1 person.
Many definitions are plyable but the general social understanding is that this case is a terrorist case not a rebellion nor invasion. You are just using the definitions in the broadest possible sense to fit the case into the 'qualification criteria'.

Perhaps that is your percieved definition. And I don't think social understanding is the point here. The framers of the constitution allowed for exceptions and provisions to be made in times of danger. Clearly, with the precedent of 9/11, aircraft terrorism has the potential of killing thousands of people - and that certainly qualifies as danger.

We are currently involved in two wars. Clearly it is a 'wartime' period.

We can go back and forth all day on perceptions, etc. But I posted the text in black and white from Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution.

We are not breaching the constitution by disallowing a murderous terrorist due process in a time of war - call it invasion or rebellion.

All of the squabbling over the last 100 posts about constitutional infringement etc., etc., is nothing but noise.

The U.S. is fully within its constitutional powers to deny Abdulmutallab due process.

 

[Industrialsize]

I am NOT a constitutional scholar so if it is or isn't constitutional to deny Abdulmutallab due process. However, I have faith in our Criminal Justice system to not lose a wink of sleep, confident that Mr. Abdulmutallab will receive the punishment that he deserves for the crime he committed.

 

[mitchymo]

Perhaps that is your percieved definition. And I don't think social understanding is the point here. The framers of the constitution allowed for exceptions and provisions to be made in times of danger. Clearly, with the precedent of 9/11, aircraft terrorism has the potential of killing thousands of people - and that certainly qualifies as danger.

We are currently involved in two wars. Clearly it is a 'wartime' period.

We can go back and forth all day on perceptions, etc. But I posted the text in black and white from Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution.

We are not breaching the constitution by disallowing a murderous terrorist due process in a time of war - call it invasion or rebellion.



All of the squabbling over the last 100 posts about constitutional infringement etc., etc., is nothing but noise.

The U.S. is fully within its constitutional powers to deny Abdulmutallab due process.

Because obviously the constitution is foolproof yea right.

The constitution is not a how-to on human rights and it is this core issue that is being discussed.

If you allow the waivering of habeus corpus particularly when there is no substancial immediate need to do so then you are taking a backward step, are you not supposed to be world leaders?

Any idea that this man witholding information due to his allowed legal representation is causing harm to the US is purely hypothetical and to allow such things as waterboarding to make him spill as you put it in your original op is against international human rights. How far do you go on torturing him if he knows absolutely nothing? If he was working on his own? If he knows no terrorist groups or their activity? When are you turning from positive investigators to torturors?

 

[B_starinvestor]

I am NOT a constitutional scholar so if it is or isn't constitutional to deny Abdulmutallab due process. However, I have faith in our Criminal Justice system to not lose a wink of sleep, confident that Mr. Abdulmutallab will receive the punishment that he deserves for the crime he committed.

I agree that he will get the punishment he deserves. However, my point is that we were not violating the constitution if we had denied him due process - which is what this thread is all about.

Phil Ayesho, Vince and a slew of others continue to beat the due process drum relating to this case and they are incorrect. And the proof is in black and white a few posts up.