Senators to AG Holder: "Who decided bomber was civilian?"

[Matt Black]

You can disregard the facts if you wish. I expect you to.

Here's another one for you to ignore or explain away.

Even obama recognizes we are at war with Al Qaeda by keeping troops in Afghanistan to hunt them down and kill them, but he allows them to come here and try to kill us and treats them the same as he would a bank robber.

If they attack and kill our troops, they are terrorists, but if they attack civilians, they are common criminals.

The inconsistency is glaring, deadly and idiotic.

Actually, the primary purpose for the international force (including British, for which we lose a young man virtually every other day) in Afghanistan is nation-building in opposition to the Taleban, which are an illegal Islamist insurgency against the Afghan government.

 

[carpro]

Actually, the primary purpose for the international force (including British, for which we lose a young man virtually every other day) in Afghanistan is nation-building in opposition to the Taleban, which are an illegal Islamist insurgency against the Afghan government.

Obama doesn't share your opinion.



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P7CO20090327

Obama sets Qaeda defeat as top goal in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama unveiled a new war strategy for Afghanistan on Friday with a key goal -- to crush al Qaeda militants there and in Pakistan who he said were plotting new attacks on the United States.

Don't make his inconsistency yours.

 

[Matt Black]

Regardless of what Obama thinks, the main reason is to defeat the Taleban. In any event, this was a crime committed on (or rather, over) American soil, not on Afghan or Pakistani territory.

 

[carpro]

Regardless of what Obama thinks, the main reason is to defeat the Taleban. In any event, this was a crime committed on (or rather, over) American soil, not on Afghan or Pakistani territory.

What Obama thinks and how he has decided to handle the terrorists is the subject of this thread.

Now that his inconsistency has been pointed out, his opinion suddenly doesn't matter?

You havenow officially adopted the same double standard he has. The facts never did really matter to you, did they?

 

[Matt Black]

Are you going to engage with what I've posted (the legal arguments etc) or must we continue our dialogue of the deaf?

 

[Revmitchell]

Regardless of what Obama thinks, the main reason is to defeat the Taleban. In any event, this was a crime committed on (or rather, over) American soil, not on Afghan or Pakistani territory.

What is it you think you know about American law or even our constitution?

 

[just-want-peace]

Advanced liberalism is a form of elitism. They believe that they know what's best for everyone, that the lower classes are too stupid to run their own lives.

When it doesn't work out (which it usually doesn't), they blame it on the stupidity of the masses and never ever take responsibility for their own actions.

That's happening as we speak. The Obamanites are extreme elitists. In the face of overwhelming opposition by the people, their misguided sense of elitism tells them these dummies should appreciate what they are trying to do. So they will continue to try to cram their programs down the throats of people who clearly don't want it, never admitting that the problem is the agenda.

After all the masses are too stupid to know what's best for them, aren't they?

A perfect description of FDR's policies!!

 

[Matt Black]

What is it you think you know about American law or even our constitution?

Care to enlighten me on what you think I'm missing?

 

[Revmitchell]

Care to enlighten me on what you think I'm missing?

Answer the question

 

[Matt Black]

Then you need to be more specific in your question; I could write essays otherwise.

 

[carpro]

Are you going to engage with what I've posted (the legal arguments etc) or must we continue our dialogue of the deaf?

Nice dodge.

As hard as it is to answer question from someone who operates on a double stardard, your questions have been addressed.

But you continue to ignore the facts. I can do nothing more than point out your inconsistencies and watch you run from them.

 

[Revmitchell]

Then you need to be more specific in your question; I could write essays otherwise.

The context of this thread is what is relevant. but then you already knew that.

 

[Matt Black]

Alright, here's your 'starter for ten':

The Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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

Note that the Amendment moves swiftly on from referring to US citizens to 'any person' and stresses the need for 'any person within its jurisdiction' the have the 'equal protection of the laws'. Thus the following principles are enunciated: due process is extended to all who are being deprived of liberty and/or within State jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship.

This Amendment, of course, merely extended the well-established Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the individual states; I quote from it here largely because of the interesting mention of citizens and persons in the context of this thread. Lest anyone need reminding what the Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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.

Note again: 'no person'. Not 'no citizen'. Flowing from this, there is also of course the Sixth Amendment in the BoR:

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 where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

I think your Constitution's pretty good and clear, don't you?

[ETA - even the controversial PATRIOT Act accepts that terrorism is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions and due process therefore following (Title VIII of the Act)]

 

[Aaron]

You should research the legal definition of "person."

 

[Matt Black]

I have - the exception envisaged by the Constitution was slaves, but see the Thirteenth Amendment there. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have tended to extend rather than restrict the definition.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Alright, here's your 'starter for ten':

The Fourteenth Amendment:



Note that the Amendment moves swiftly on from referring to US citizens to 'any person' and stresses the need for 'any person within its jurisdiction' the have the 'equal protection of the laws'. Thus the following principles are enunciated: due process is extended to all who are being deprived of liberty and/or within State jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship.

You've done a far better job of explaining this than I did when I tried. Good job!

This Amendment, of course, merely extended the well-established Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the individual states; I quote from it here largely because of the interesting mention of citizens and persons in the context of this thread. Lest anyone need reminding what the Fifth Amendment says:

Just one small note- the part of the Fifth Amendment regarding indictment by a grand jury in capital or infamous crimes (interpreted by the SCOTUS as felonies), has not been incorporated against the states, but the rest has. For example, the Constitution of the State of Florida has differing rules, which are okay with the Supreme Court.

No person shall be tried for capital crime without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by courts martial.

 

[Revmitchell]

Alright, here's your 'starter for ten':

The Fourteenth Amendment:



Note that the Amendment moves swiftly on from referring to US citizens to 'any person' and stresses the need for 'any person within its jurisdiction' the have the 'equal protection of the laws'. Thus the following principles are enunciated: due process is extended to all who are being deprived of liberty and/or within State jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship.

This Amendment, of course, merely extended the well-established Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the individual states; I quote from it here largely because of the interesting mention of citizens and persons in the context of this thread. Lest anyone need reminding what the Fifth Amendment says:

Note again: 'no person'. Not 'no citizen'. Flowing from this, there is also of course the Sixth Amendment in the BoR: I think your Constitution's pretty good and clear, don't you?

[ETA - even the controversial PATRIOT Act accepts that terrorism is a criminal offence with criminal sanctions and due process therefore following (Title VIII of the Act)]

Is that it?

 

[Matt Black]

In what way is that not germane or sufficient to the case in hand?

 

[Revmitchell]

In what way is that not germane or sufficient to the case in hand?

I said neither of those I want to know is that the whole of your argument?

 

[Matt Black]

It's enough to be going on with. I'm running a business here so don't have time for more right now.