An open question...

Dixie said:
I did answer it mainefondler!
Click to expand...

when the airplane landed in Detroit, and the underwear bomber was taken into custody THERE, did American laws apply to him?

and how's that erotic love poetry to that young gal going? still flowery? still prolific? still creepy?
 
maineman said:
when the airplane landed in Detroit, and the underwear bomber was taken into custody THERE, did American laws apply to him?

and how's that erotic love poetry to that young gal going? still flowery? still prolific? still creepy?
Click to expand...

MM, why do you insist on bringing up shit that is either old news or from another board?

Why not just discuss the topic? If you dislike these people so much, why not ignore them?

Its hard enough to keep these threads on topic without stirring up nonsense that doesn't belong.
 
Threedee said:
I will point out that none of the Articles apply to a foreign national, since they are not citizens of any state, can't vote, and can't hold public office. As for the Amendments, none of the ones that relate to voting or holding office...

So it really comes down to what kinds of rights and protections we want to bestow upon our guests...
Click to expand...

this is actually easy to answer if one uses logic. Take the 2nd Amendment for example. It is considered a pre-existing right, but if it pre-existed before the constitution and the US government, it therefore must be a right of all people, citizens and foreign nationals. It's not any different with any other rights.

Now, the 'legal' rights like voting, yes, you must be a US citizen. Holding office isn't a right. Those conditions are specifically described in the articles.
 
WinterBorn said:
MM, why do you insist on bringing up shit that is either old news or from another board?

Why not just discuss the topic? If you dislike these people so much, why not ignore them?

Its hard enough to keep these threads on topic without stirring up nonsense that doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

hmmmmm I wonder why post #82 did not receive a similar rebuke?
 
Threedee said:
I will point out that none of the Articles apply to a foreign national, since they are not citizens of any state, can't vote, and can't hold public office. As for the Amendments, none of the ones that relate to voting or holding office...

So it really comes down to what kinds of rights and protections we want to bestow upon our guests...
Click to expand...

Correct, the 14 due process applies to ALL PERSONS.
 
Dixie said:
The Constitution is essentially the rule of law for our nation. It is designed and intended to be applied to citizens of our country, just as other countries have their own rules of law. India's rule of law doesn't apply to American citizens anymore than our rule of law applies to them. We can't go to Syria and arrest Makmud for beating his wife, because our jurisdiction and rule of law does not extend to Syria. So what happens in Syria, stays in Syria, and we have nothing to do with what might be injustices here, it's not our country.

You are continuing to wrong-headedly apply our rule of law to foreigners, and bestow the rights you wish to bestow, based on nothing more than knee-jerk emotionalism. You are totally opposed to allowing a foreign corporation or entity to have a political voice or help shape US policy, those "freedoms" are denied, but you wish to apply other freedoms, like trial by jury of piers, etc. So you are picking and choosing which freedoms the foreigner is and isn't entitled to. How can you possibly give someone a "fair" trial if you have denied them freedom of speech? It gets all convoluted, because we don't know which rights you want to give to foreigners and which rights you wish to deny!

The Constitution should apply or it shouldn't. Make up your mind! One way or the other! Either the Constitution applies to foreigners and they have every right articulated in it, or they don't... it's as simple as that!
Click to expand...

Just look at the Constitution, some portions apply only to Citizins, like voting rights. The 14th Amendment has portions that apply to Citizins and portions that apply to "any person".

..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Words mean things, had the writers of the Constitution intended only citizins, they would have said... "any citizen", instead they said "any person"!

Dimwit!
 
Jarod said:
Okay, lets back up, what make up the charge of committing an act of war. What, for example, seperates him from Richard Reid?
Click to expand...
Trying to blow up a passenger aircraft during the war on terror is an act of war. The thing that separates Shoe Bomber from Droopy Drawers Bomber is experience; until Reid came around the policy to handle this type of attack wasn't well established.
 
Yurt said:
what :eek:

what happened to the presumption of innocence? :pke:
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand the presumption of innocence. It is not about what I think, its about how the individual is treated in the eyes of the Government.
 
Southern Man said:
Trying to blow up a passenger aircraft during the war on terror is an act of war. The thing that separates Shoe Bomber from Droopy Drawers Bomber is experience; until Reid came around the policy to handle this type of attack wasn't well established.
Click to expand...

So what due process has occured that determined:

1) That that Droopy Drawers tried to blow up a passenger aircraft.
2) What is established to say this is an act of war, or is it just because you say so.
3) What seperates him from the guys in Miami who tried to bring down an aircraft in the name of Al QUeda a few years ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top