Granting Abdulmutallab U.S. citizen rights will cost lives

[HazelGod]

This is like Law 101 dude.

More like 2nd grade reading comprehension. The Constitution makes voluminous references to persons but precious few to citizens. Like most of the founding documents, it clearly embodies the belief of the authors that all people were inherently endowed with the same basic rights (as distinct from privileges granted by a sovereign authority) and so were to be afforded equal treatment, regardless of their citizenship status. Sadly, they were a little misguided on the notion of what constituted a person, but later generations rectified their mistake.

It's clear the OP doesn't understand this very basic concept. Rights are not something our government grants to people at its discretion...they are innate to all people by virtue of their humanity. The language of the Constitution was intended to ensure that our government always respects these inherent rights of human beings.

 

[B_starinvestor]

If any one of those people is in the US at the time they commit a crime, the constitution covers them.

This is like Law 101 dude.

Sections 8 and 9 provide exceptions under certain circumstances. Abdulmutallab fit those circumstances. Denying him due process would not have violated the constitution.

One can make a distinction between 'citizen' and 'person' in the constitution - which it appears you have already done with respect to the 5th amendment. That said, 'persons' are afforded due process under the fifth. Persons - apparently - being anyone be it citizen or not.

However, Sect. 8 and 9 distinctly provide the gov't exceptions when danger is involved.

Can we put this do bed now?

 

[B_starinvestor]

More like 2nd grade reading comprehension. The Constitution makes voluminous references to persons but precious few to citizens. .

I am not arguing this point - the term 'citizen' was, it seems, carefully placed within the document.

 

[mitchymo]

Can we put this do bed now?

I don't think there can ever be agreement on this so perhaps it is best.

It comes down to the disagreement that sections 8 and 9 do not fit this mans case like others say it does.

The danger just does'nt exist at a level that requires the taking advantage of these sections. (say some, and that therin lies the endless disagreement)

 

[dreamer20]

No it isn't.


Under Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to

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.

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.

Clearly denying a person arrested in the U.S.A. , such as he, due process would violate the constitution's Bill of Rights - these being entrenched rights for all individuals which cannot be infringed by the government as you proposed starinvestor. As he was arrested, and held in custody, public safety was not an issue and it was shrewd to proceed with his habeaus corpus hearing as it led to his indictment for his crimes and justified the state's detention of Abdulmutalib.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Clearly denying a person arrested in the U.S.A. , such as he, due process would violate the constitution's Bill of Rights - these being entrenched rights for all individuals which cannot be infringed by the government as you proposed starinvestor. As he was arrested, and held in custody, public safety was not an issue and it was shrewd to proceed with his habeaus corpus hearing as it led to his indictment for his crimes and justified the state's detention of Abdulmutalib.

I understand your point. However, had they not granted him due process they would still be within the framework of the constitution since this particular act of aggression/violence could easily be defended under 8 and 9.

Section 8 and 9 aren't suggesting that public safety be reviewed once the subject is in custody. It is the actions that precipitated the subject being placed in custody that that is at issue.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

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.

Not actually horsnawaggle, Hazel.

9/11/01 was not characteristic. It was the single deadliest attack in the history of terrorism.

When you average out the number of American killed each year by terrorism, over a couple of decades, you are still 3,000 more times as likely to be killed by Non-terrorist gun violence.

Also--- the number murdered by guns does not include murders by other violent means... knives, bludgeon, strangulation, poison, etc.

Unlike terrorism, which killed 3,000 people ONE year.
4,000 people in the US DROWN EVERY year.

Where's the "war on water"?
Where's the war on cars?


People need to have a sense of proportion.
Getting all riled up over terrorism IS WHAT TERRORISM IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

The creation of the department of homeland defense is a huge WIN for Bin Laden. We spend Billions over a dozen guys with xacto knives...

yeah... THAT'S smart...

 

[HazelGod]

No, I don't disagree with you, Phil...in fact, I've raised the notion of banning automobiles myself in several discussions before.

My minor quibble was that the "death by gun violence" remark is only true if you include suicides as part of the statistic, and that seems unreasonable to me.

 

[midlifebear]

Finally opened up this thread and read through all of the posts. Summary: Starinvestor thinks we should amend the Constitution of the United States of America because . . . well, because he says so.

Am I the only person posting on this thread who regards Starimposter a dull tool?

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

Not actually horsnawaggle, Hazel.

9/11/01 was not characteristic. It was the single deadliest attack in the history of terrorism.

When you average out the number of American killed each year by terrorism, over a couple of decades, you are still 3,000 more times as likely to be killed by Non-terrorist gun violence.

Also--- the number murdered by guns does not include murders by other violent means... knives, bludgeon, strangulation, poison, etc.

Unlike terrorism, which killed 3,000 people ONE year.
4,000 people in the US DROWN EVERY year.

Where's the "war on water"?
Where's the war on cars?


People need to have a sense of proportion.
Getting all riled up over terrorism IS WHAT TERRORISM IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

The creation of the department of homeland defense is a huge WIN for Bin Laden. We spend Billions over a dozen guys with xacto knives...

yeah... THAT'S smart...

aside from the deaths what was the economical toll of 9/11? you can't compare that with anything. accidents poeple are going to die. 9/11 was an act of war on our soil. I'm my opinion we've been to slack.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

aside from the deaths what was the economical toll of 9/11? you can't compare that with anything. accidents poeple are going to die. 9/11 was an act of war on our soil. I'm my opinion we've been to slack.

I agree. W. Bush was too slack in 2001. Especially when specific memo's had already crossed several desks... but anyway...

 

[BF2K]

You know very well that foreign nationals are subject to US law while on US soil. That includes the right to legal representation. It may seem ridiculous if you want to short-circuit your thinking process and jump to a conclusion, but if you consider the alternatives to due process for all for a minute, you'd realize that these are laws and rights best left the way they are. As a foreigner living or traveling outside of Canada, I sure would not want to be subject to a different set of laws and rights than the locals.

Was surprised at your "innocence" Vince - until a person passes Customs in the US he is not "officially" on US Soil.

 

[vince]

Was surprised at your "innocence" Vince - until a person passes Customs in the US he is not "officially" on US Soil.

Innocense? (sic) Not sure what you mean there bud. Ignorance maybe... I'm not a lawyer.

In any case I think you mean Immigration. They stamp the passport and you are in the USofA. Then you go through Customs Control.

But that's an interesting, although probably irrelevant point. If they haul you off of a flight and arrest you, do you also get processed by Immigration and Customs? Do they stamp the passport? I have no idea.

I would suppose that since the alleged crime took place in US airspace, then US laws apply. What else could be? Nigerian law since he a citizen of Nigeria? Dutch law? Doubtful... I know you and Star and others think the Law of the Jungle should apply.

Maybe Gitmo Law. "so boss... Do we pull his toenails out before his gits fitted for his waterboard? Or after? Have a look in that there Enhanced techniques manual."

 

[B_starinvestor]

The creation of the department of homeland defense is a huge WIN for Bin Laden. We spend Billions over a dozen guys with xacto knives...

yeah... THAT'S smart...

I agree...when all we have to do is profile at airports the the problem is solved ipso facto.

 

[dreamer20]

{QUOTE=starinvestor;2540935}

Under Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to:

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 Congress shall not have the power to:

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.{/QUOTE}

Clearly denying a person arrested in the U.S.A. , such as he, due process would violate the constitution's Bill of Rights - these being entrenched rights for all individuals which cannot be infringed by the government as you proposed starinvestor. As he was arrested, and held in custody, public safety was not an issue and it was shrewd to proceed with his habeas corpus hearing as it led to his indictment for his crimes and justified the state's detention of Abdulmutalib.

starinvestor's current signature:

Terrorists have no rights under the U.S. Constitution. See Sections 8 and 9. The 5th Amendment gets trumped.

Contrary to what you have written in your signature, starinvestor, persons in U.S. criminal detention, including local or foreign terrorist suspects, have rights under the U.S. constitution as

(a) the U.S. adopted the I.P.C.C.P.R. treaty in 1992

and

(b) per the Supreme Court ruling Boumediene v. Bush of 2008: prisoners must be given the right to habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution. Re: this ruling:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"The Supreme Court has rebuked President Bush's vision of the presidency as an office of limitless power, and declared that the president of a free nation cannot simply lock people up and throw away the key like some third-world dictator. "

[/FONT][/FONT]Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/2 5935res20...

Note Section 9's suspension of habeas corpus does not do away with a detainee's right to such a hearing, but suspends it.
In the absence of a rebellion or invasion and with courts being available to the detainee, the Supreme Court has viewed such suspensions as being unconstitutional in regard to denying the detainee his right to due process (as in the cases of several Guantanamo detainees) and ordered habeas corpus hearings must occur.

Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia