PDA

View Full Version : Everyone, Including Osama Bin Laden, Should Get the Same 'Basic Rights'



patriot45
11-24-2009, 09:55 AM
From a towering moonbat, Dennis "the kook" (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57511) Kucinich, comes this drivel and now he wants to stand behind the constitution!!!



When asked whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden should have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told CNSNews.com that everyone who is accused of a crime should have the same "basic rights" afforded by the U.S. Constitution..

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Kucinich, “If and when the U.S. captures Osama Bin Laden, should he have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer--told he can get a lawyer?”

Kucinich said: “I think that America does best when the values that we want other nations to share that we profess and stand by, and I think that every one who is accused of a crime should have the basic rights that are afforded. I mean, that’s what America’s about

“We can’t have one set of rules there and another set of rules there,” said Kucinich. “America is one set of rules. We abide by the Constitution, and I think that Constitution is our protection now and in the future.

FlaGator
11-24-2009, 10:04 AM
From a towering moonbat, Dennis "the kook" (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57511) Kucinich, comes this drivel and now he wants to stand behind the constitution!!!

This is the first time I think that I've ever agreed with Kucinich, but my agreement is limited to if Bin Laden is tried in a criminal court. I would hope that he is tried by a military court where this issues are moot.

patriot45
11-24-2009, 10:09 AM
This is the first time I think that I've ever agreed with Kucinich, but my agreement is limited to if Bin Laden is tried in a criminal court. I would hope that he is tried by a military court where this issues are moot.

I would rather we got to see his bullet riddled body and save us the drama.

stsinner
11-24-2009, 10:45 AM
I love how these insane people think that our US Constitution applies to everyone with a pulse.. It's sickening how they are cheapening the blessing that is being an American Citizen with all the benefits that carries with it. These people we are capturing overseas are not considered criminals-they are enemy combatants not serving in uniform or representing any country, and,therefore, are not entitled to Constitutional rights or even subject to Geneva Convention considerations..
Bin Laden should be publicly executed, just as KSM should be.. And any other person who utters the words Allahu Ackbar in the commission of a crime. They should be wrapped in bacon and released into the woods with the pack of pitbulls not far behind.

FlaGator
11-24-2009, 10:51 AM
I love how these insane people think that our US Constitution applies to everyone with a pulse.. It's sickening how they are cheapening the blessing that is being an American Citizen with all the benefits that carries with it. These people we are capturing overseas are not considered criminals-they are enemy combatants not serving in uniform or representing any country, and,therefore, are not entitled to Constitutional rights or even subject to Geneva Convention considerations..
Bin Laden should be publicly executed, just as KSM should be.. And any other person who utters the words Allahu Ackbar in the commission of a crime. They should be wrapped in bacon and released into the woods with the pack of pitbulls not far behind.

Question... why shouldn't our constitution apply to everyone when they come under the jurisdiction of the United States?

stsinner
11-24-2009, 10:59 AM
Question... why shouldn't our constitution apply to everyone when they come under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Because the U.S. Constitution was intended for United States Citizens. Should we, as Americans, be subject to the laws of Saudi Arabia? Australia? England? Absolutely not, and no document they have in place affects us, so why should ours affect them? We are our own society, and we're separate from the rest of the world, and they are separate from us with their laws, customs, traditions, allowable acts, etc..

As much as some of your ilk can't stand it, being an American citizen is a great honor, and America is a great country, and that's why people want to come here.. You seem to think that, just as Kennedy said, 'Ich bin ein Berliner' in Berlin, meaning he was a Berliner, when of course he wasn't and had no rights in Germany, that people can just say they want to be treated like an American and it is possible.. NO! That's not true. Or it's not supposed to be. That's the incentive for becoming an American citizen-otherwise, what's the point?

linda22003
11-24-2009, 11:06 AM
Because the U.S. Constitution was intended for United States Citizens. Should we, as Americans, be subject to the laws of Saudi Arabia? Australia? England?

Yes, if we commit a crime in any of those countries. And we are subject to them, unless our State Department manages to intercede for us.

linda22003
11-24-2009, 11:09 AM
just as Kennedy said, 'Ich bin ein Berliner' in Berlin, meaning he was a Berliner,

It's what he meant to communicate; to the locals, he was saying he was a jelly doughnut. :)

djones520
11-24-2009, 11:17 AM
I love how these insane people think that our US Constitution applies to everyone with a pulse.. It's sickening how they are cheapening the blessing that is being an American Citizen with all the benefits that carries with it. These people we are capturing overseas are not considered criminals-they are enemy combatants not serving in uniform or representing any country, and,therefore, are not entitled to Constitutional rights or even subject to Geneva Convention considerations..
Bin Laden should be publicly executed, just as KSM should be.. And any other person who utters the words Allahu Ackbar in the commission of a crime. They should be wrapped in bacon and released into the woods with the pack of pitbulls not far behind.

Let me share something with you.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



It does not say The People, like other amendments do, when referring to US Citizens. The 5th Amendment clearly states no one at all. That means US Citizens and Foreigners alike.

patriot45
11-24-2009, 11:21 AM
Let me share something with you.



It does not say The People, like other amendments do, when referring to US Citizens. The 5th Amendment clearly states no one at all. That means US Citizens and Foreigners alike.

These aren't people, the correct term is unlawful enemy combatants.

as in:


"Federal district courts shall have no jurisdiction over any case involving unlawful enemy combatants, as that term is defined in the United States Code (Title 10, Section 948a)."

djones520
11-24-2009, 12:00 PM
These aren't people, the correct term is unlawful enemy combatants.

as in:

If they are detained as an unlawful enemy combatant, then yes. If you grab a guy in an ally with a hood over his head though, he's not an unlawful enemy combatant.

Just depends on how we capture them I guess.

Molon Labe
11-24-2009, 12:36 PM
Question... why shouldn't our constitution apply to everyone when they come under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Well, Not the constitution or our rights for anyone but a U.S citizen. But I agree that if rights are "unalienable", which is what our founders believed, then it begs to wonder why people suggest people tried under our system have no rights. How do people justify that?

RobJohnson
11-24-2009, 01:25 PM
I love how these insane people think that our US Constitution applies to everyone with a pulse.. It's sickening how they are cheapening the blessing that is being an American Citizen with all the benefits that carries with it. These people we are capturing overseas are not considered criminals-they are enemy combatants not serving in uniform or representing any country, and,therefore, are not entitled to Constitutional rights or even subject to Geneva Convention considerations..
Bin Laden should be publicly executed, just as KSM should be.. And any other person who utters the words Allahu Ackbar in the commission of a crime. They should be wrapped in bacon and released into the woods with the pack of pitbulls not far behind.

I know a few medical professionals that are not citizens, I'll let them know they have no rights.

stsinner
11-24-2009, 01:36 PM
I know a few medical professionals that are not citizens, I'll let them know they have no rights.

I didn't say no rights you nitwit, but foreigners are not entitled to the protections and process of our judicial system. If they are captured trying to kill American citizens in the name of their religion, then they should be tried in a military tribunal, not given a jury trial where the facts can be skewed and heart strings of Liberal pussies sitting in the jury can be tugged at.. There's no room for feelings in these matters.

Did you know, genius, that if KSM decides to represent himself, he can call for ALL discovery in the matter and that means our investigation techniques, our interrogation techniques, and everything else about the case in which he has no business knowing, and he can stonewall this thing for year while he soaks all this in and disseminates it through various channels, thereby making us less safe in the process when he should just be taken out and hanged. But, no, braindead people like you think this piece of shit deserves the rights of an American citizen..

FlaGator
11-24-2009, 01:42 PM
Because the U.S. Constitution was intended for United States Citizens. Should we, as Americans, be subject to the laws of Saudi Arabia? Australia? England? Absolutely not, and no document they have in place affects us, so why should ours affect them? We are our own society, and we're separate from the rest of the world, and they are separate from us with their laws, customs, traditions, allowable acts, etc..

As much as some of your ilk can't stand it, being an American citizen is a great honor, and America is a great country, and that's why people want to come here.. You seem to think that, just as Kennedy said, 'Ich bin ein Berliner' in Berlin, meaning he was a Berliner, when of course he wasn't and had no rights in Germany, that people can just say they want to be treated like an American and it is possible.. NO! That's not true. Or it's not supposed to be. That's the incentive for becoming an American citizen-otherwise, what's the point?

If you are under the jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia or Australia then we are under their laws. If you comment a crime in Australia then you have no constitutional protections. If someone commits a crime against America and is brought to America for trial then why should the Constitution not be available to them? If someone comes to the U.S. to visit and commits a crime, do you think that they should not be given constitutional protects. Here is a clue, they are. Any one here legally is subject to the constitution.

Now to another point. I don't understand why you refer to me as my ilk when you know little about me. I am honered to be a American. All I am doing is asking a question and you are completely freaking out over it like I've done something to demoralize the country by asking a question and expecting a civilized response and potential discussion. Why do you respond in such an irrational manner to a simple question? Did it ever occur to you to simply answer the question and not make it personal?

FlaGator
11-24-2009, 01:48 PM
I didn't say no rights you nitwit, but foreigners are not entitled to the protections and process of our judicial system. If they are captured trying to kill American citizens in the name of their religion, then they should be tried in a military tribunal, not given a jury trial where the facts can be skewed and heart strings of Liberal pussies sitting in the jury can be tugged at.. There's no room for feelings in these matters.

Did you know, genius, that if KSM decides to represent himself, he can call for ALL discovery in the matter and that means our investigation techniques, our interrogation techniques, and everything else about the case in which he has no business knowing, and he can stonewall this thing for year while he soaks all this in and disseminates it through various channels, thereby making us less safe in the process when he should just be taken out and hanged. But, no, braindead people like you think this piece of shit deserves the rights of an American citizen..

I am going to ask you nicely not to attack people and call them names like nitwit when you haven't been attacked and no one has called you any names. I don't care what has happened in other threads because we are dealing with the here and now. Please behave like a grown up or go find a new place to play.

stsinner
11-24-2009, 01:59 PM
I am going to ask you nicely not to attack people and call them names like nitwit when you haven't been attacked and no one has called you any names. I don't care what has happened in other threads because we are dealing with the here and now. Please behave like a grown up or go find a new place to play.

A little thin-skinned, are we? So jerk is the only acceptable name that won't incur your wrath, evidently.. Duly noted.. I've never been one to say jerk, but it seems to get a pass here, so I'll have to adopt it in order to carry on my addiction of belittling those who disagree with me nonsensically.

But, seriously, what some of the people in this thread are saying about American citizenship and American rights are much more offensive to me than being called a nitwit.

stsinner
11-24-2009, 02:02 PM
If you are under the jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia or Australia then we are under their laws. If you comment a crime in Australia then you have no constitutional protections. If someone commits a crime against America and is brought to America for trial then why should the Constitution not be available to them? If someone comes to the U.S. to visit and commits a crime, do you think that they should not be given constitutional protects. Here is a clue, they are. Any one here legally is subject to the constitution.

For some reason, and I can't quite put my finger on it, but you people can't seem to differentiate between military and civilian matters. If a uniformed American soldier commits a crime, he is not subject to the same constitutional protections as a civilian. They are two different situations and areas of existence. Military matters are military matters, and civilian matters are civilian matters. If someone is trying to kill our soldiers, he is a military problem that should be dealt with under the codes of military tribunal and punishment.

And the media should be the first ones to be dismissed from the room once the tribunal begins..

Molon Labe
11-24-2009, 02:13 PM
And the media should be the first ones to be dismissed from the room once the tribunal begins..

There are worse things that could happen than allowing the media to cover this.

SarasotaRepub
11-24-2009, 02:19 PM
Poor Dennis, well meaning I suppose but still a leftist kook. I guess his supporters on DU, KOS, and Huff will be happy. :rolleyes:

Now here's how it should play out when Osama is caught:

1.) If alive - I'd torture the living you know what out of him and extract every widdle detail about his organization we can. Then I'd do it some more, just for fun.
Then I'd walk him outside, smile and say "Thank you very much! We have some parting gifts for you!" At that point a M2 would put a 50 cal piece of lead into his skull. :)

2.) If dead - Well...he's dead. ;)

And I'm in a good mood today!

stsinner
11-24-2009, 02:20 PM
There are worse things that could happen than allowing the media to cover this.

I agree, but it's the media that can lose a war for you.. Some argue that it's the media that made us lose Vietnam. Soldiers killing the enemy is not something that needs to be on the TV screens of American families,and it's only used for anti-military propaganda these days, not for propping up our military and showing how hard they are fighting to win whatever conflict it is we're fighting. . The media is anti-military, as are all Liberals, and they don't portray the combat footage and reporting in a positive light so as to instill faith and hope and respect for our troops. They instead portray them as viscous killers.. War is the act of killing people that are trying to kill you, so it's going to be unpleasant, but that unpleasantness cannot be allowed to cloud the reason for going to war or the necessity of winning. I simply believe that there is no room in the combat theater for reporters who no longer practice journalism, but instead practice sensationalism and ratings production, and sometimes outright lying.

patriot45
11-24-2009, 02:27 PM
There is a distiction between what rights a lawful combatant would get compared to an unlawful combatant!
The dopey libs and some people here want to afford Unlawful combatants our rights as citizens! :confused:
So we look good.:cool:

Simple search and simple answers.

The terrorist who are going to the circus in N.Y. meet the criteria of unlawfull combatants, they should be tried by the military.


Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) describes a person who engages in combat without meeting the requirements for a lawful belligerent according to the laws of war as specified in the Third Geneva Convention. Countries that identify such unlawful combatants may not necessarily accord them the rights of prisoners of war described in the Third Geneva Convention, though they retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
The term has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. It was introduced into US domestic law in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand make theoretical distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants and the legal status thereof.

FlaGator
11-24-2009, 02:44 PM
For some reason, and I can't quite put my finger on it, but you people can't seem to differentiate between military and civilian matters. If a uniformed American soldier commits a crime, he is not subject to the same constitutional protections as a civilian. They are two different situations and areas of existence. Military matters are military matters, and civilian matters are civilian matters. If someone is trying to kill our soldiers, he is a military problem that should be dealt with under the codes of military tribunal and punishment.

And the media should be the first ones to be dismissed from the room once the tribunal begins..

Did you read my original comments? I clearly stated that I would perfer this to take place in a military court of law but if it was going to be done by the criminal justice system I had no issues with applying the constitution to the accused. Currently that is exactly how things work. All I asked you was your reasoning for not applying the Constitutional protections to everyone who comes under the jurisdiction of the United States (which is what happens unless you are an enemy combatant). Anyone legally in the US has Constitutional protections when the break the law.

stsinner
11-24-2009, 09:07 PM
Anyone legally in the US has Constitutional protections when the break the law.

Bullshit, FG... KSM was LEGALLY brought here by the piece of shit President we have now, so he's legally in America, if we're being technical, so you'd afford him Constitutional right, but he's an enemy combatant, which you claim aren't eligible for constititutional rights.. They're doing this crap on purpose!

Rockntractor
11-24-2009, 09:27 PM
Did you read my original comments? I clearly stated that I would perfer this to take place in a military court of law but if it was going to be done by the criminal justice system I had no issues with applying the constitution to the accused. Currently that is exactly how things work. All I asked you was your reasoning for not applying the Constitutional protections to everyone who comes under the jurisdiction of the United States (which is what happens unless you are an enemy combatant). Anyone legally in the US has Constitutional protections when the break the law.
We will see if your opinion is the same when these terrorists walk because they weren't read their rights and arrested in a proper manner or questioned right for that matter. If I was a serviceman right now my opinion would be that you all could go straight to hell and protect yourselves!

Big Guy
11-24-2009, 09:39 PM
They should be tred at the end of a barrel, and each of them should be given a 5.56 calibur injection to the forehead. These maggots don't deserve a trial, if they are on the battle fied fighting our troops they should be killed, they wear no uniforns, they target civilians and they show no quarter.

The U.S. Constitution and Geneva convention does not apply here. Kill em all and let god sort them out.

Zathras
11-24-2009, 10:08 PM
They should be tred at the end of a barrel, and each of them should be given a 5.56 calibur injection to the forehead. These maggots don't deserve a trial, if they are on the battle fied fighting our troops they should be killed, they wear no uniforns, they target civilians and they show no quarter.

The U.S. Constitution and Geneva convention does not apply here. Kill em all and let god sort them out.

Agree 100% with this. The only rights these animals deserve is to be lined up against the nearest wall when captured, have pigs blood poured on them and shot down as you would do with any rabid animal....then dumped into a unmarked grave.

FlaGator
11-25-2009, 07:41 AM
We will see if your opinion is the same when these terrorists walk because they weren't read their rights and arrested in a proper manner or questioned right for that matter. If I was a serviceman right now my opinion would be that you all could go straight to hell and protect yourselves!

Again for the reading imparied , my opinion is that KSM and all terrorists should be tried in a military court. If, for what ever reason, KSM is not tried in a military court then the only other options will be to try him in a U.S. criminal court, turn him over to the U.N. for prosecution or release him. I am not saying that those are acceptable option, but they just happen to be the only options available.

To restate my question, what problems do you have with trying him in Criminal Court with Constitutional protections if it should come to that. I wasn't looking for arguments because I was working under the assumption that we all want him tried in a military cour. I was looking for opinions stated in a civil fashion.

FlaGator
11-25-2009, 07:49 AM
Bullshit, FG... KSM was LEGALLY brought here by the piece of shit President we have now, so he's legally in America, if we're being technical, so you'd afford him Constitutional right, but he's an enemy combatant, which you claim aren't eligible for constititutional rights.. They're doing this crap on purpose!

I wasn't referring to him specifically. I know that he was captured abroad and that he by all right should be going to military court and tried as an enemy combatant. I think that we are all in agreement on this. My question evolved around the "fact" that Obama is going to have him tried in a U.S. Criminal Court and I was interested in knowing what the opinions of others were about this as it concerns his ability to receive consitiutiional protects, which he will receive if tried in a criminal court. I don't like it either but that is the way it is.

Now you've made me think of another question. If a U.S. Citizen commits an obviously terroristic act in the name of Allah, let's say he blows up a busy mall the day before Christmas, who do you feel should have jurisdiction vs who will actually get jurisdiction?

stsinner
11-25-2009, 08:31 AM
Now you've made me think of another question. If a U.S. Citizen commits an obviously terroristic act in the name of Allah, let's say he blows up a busy mall the day before Christmas, who do you feel should have jurisdiction vs who will actually get jurisdiction?

That's a good question. Well, if he is an American citizen not serving in the military, therefore not subject to the UCMJ, then he gets tried in a civilian court, but hopefully a Federal court.

FlaGator
11-25-2009, 08:53 AM
That's a good question. Well, if he is an American citizen not serving in the military, therefore not subject to the UCMJ, then he gets tried in a civilian court, but hopefully a Federal court.

Ala Timothy McVey

Molon Labe
11-25-2009, 08:56 AM
Now you've made me think of another question. If a U.S. Citizen commits an obviously terroristic act in the name of Allah, let's say he blows up a busy mall the day before Christmas, who do you feel should have jurisdiction vs who will actually get jurisdiction?

F.G. You seem the most open to this, so I think you'd appreciate this quote.


“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to
stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He
that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent
that will reach to himself.- Thomas Paine from Dissertations on First Principles of Government


I think you'd agree we tend to ignore these past truths in favor of our so called new modern sages.

noonwitch
11-25-2009, 09:25 AM
It's like when the police have to take out a sniper-I just hope that the military has a good reason to shoot at him and takes him out before anyone has to deal with the whole legal justice side of it all.

FlaGator
11-25-2009, 09:27 AM
F.G. You seem the most open to this, so I think you'd appreciate this quote.


“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to
stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He
that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent
that will reach to himself.- Thomas Paine from Dissertations on First Principles of Government


I think you'd agree we tend to ignore these past truths in favor of our so called new modern sages.

I do agree with that.

It seems to me that once we cross a certain line in our ability to punish those we deem worthy of punishment we run the risk of having that brutality turned against us and we have no grounds to dispute it.

patriot45
11-25-2009, 10:02 AM
The "kook" is bringing the moonbats out of the woodwork! More inanity! (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57612)



New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez told CNSNews.com that Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice and prosecuted in civilian court, where he will most certainly be convicted.

Menendez, interviewed at the Capitol Thursday, was asked whether –when caught – bin Laden should be read his Miranda rights, as is required for all federal criminal defendants. Menendez said that as far as he was concerned, the al Qaeda leader should be prosecuted and convicted in court.

FlaGator
11-25-2009, 10:18 AM
The "kook" is bringing the moonbats out of the woodwork! More inanity! (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57612)

Criminal court couldn't convict OJ with DNA evidence. Forgive me if I don't have that much confidence in the criminal justice system.

noonwitch
11-25-2009, 10:23 AM
Criminal court couldn't convict OJ with DNA evidence. Forgive me if I don't have that much confidence in the criminal justice system.


There were a lot of reasons why OJ didn't get convicted, but the two I would point to are 1. an inept prosecutor, and 2. A judge who enjoyed allowing a circus atmosphere around the entire judicial process, including the jury selection process, which made it impossible to get a jury that would be fair to the prosecution's case.

If Ito hadn't been such a media clown, all the best lawyers in the world couldn't have gotten OJ off.

FlaGator
11-25-2009, 10:30 AM
There were a lot of reasons why OJ didn't get convicted, but the two I would point to are 1. an inept prosecutor, and 2. A judge who enjoyed allowing a circus atmosphere around the entire judicial process, including the jury selection process, which made it impossible to get a jury that would be fair to the prosecution's case.

If Ito hadn't been such a media clown, all the best lawyers in the world couldn't have gotten OJ off.

The problem is that the same stars won't align for KSM. Any time a high profile case makes it to courts personal agendas come in to play to make things very unpredictable.