Raptor Witness Posted April 21, 2013 #1 Share Posted April 21, 2013 The argument is already being seriously made by the right wing of the Republican Party. What they're essentially saying, is that if you violently attack the state, then you're not a U.S. citizen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted April 21, 2013 #2 Share Posted April 21, 2013 A citizen is a citzen. That the right wishes to suspend rights to our citizens is so very Bush of them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post +Paranoid Android Posted April 21, 2013 Popular Post #3 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Assuming the law recognises him as a citizen of the United States then he should be tried as a citizen of the United States. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the citizenship process - it sends the message that anyone who has been granted citizenship aren't actually equal to "true Americans" who were born and bred in the States. At least that's how it would come across to me as an Australian. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor Witness Posted April 21, 2013 Author #4 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) I think the brother, who was killed, could be considered an enemy combatant. I wouldn't have a problem with that, because he had not been granted citizenship, and there may be evidence he was acting with the help of a foreign body. It's a slippery slope if you negate citizenship, for ANY reason. I might be open to an argument for a probationary period of U.S. citizenship for those who are naturalized, because I can see the day when we've got so many of these Jihadists that we can't afford to bring them all to trial. We don't want to reward sleeper cells with citizenship. Which reminds me, perhaps these boys wanted to be seen by the cameras. Edited April 21, 2013 by Raptor Witness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeta Reticulum Posted April 21, 2013 #5 Share Posted April 21, 2013 A citizen taking on the role of a terrorist in effect becomes a enemy combatant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted April 21, 2013 #6 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) A citizen taking on the role of a terrorist in effect becomes a enemy combatant. A citizen though is afforded rights that enemy combatants are not. I'm never a fan of anyone who attacks my country or people however as with what PA said I can't abide the precedent that this would set by stripping a citizen of their rights because of an act of terrorism. That does not sound like the kind of 'justice' I want anything to do with and seems to me to be playing right in to the plans of terrorists to change our society through fear and anger. Edited April 21, 2013 by Slave2Fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted April 21, 2013 #7 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Question, if the US is still offically in this war on terror that was declared, should`nt even citizens be tried for enemy combatant against the states, if proven they had ties to the enemy of this war. When we were in the war of Japan, all Japanse citizens were lock up and consider to enemies of that war.We can never do that again, but if citizens that do harm with ties to the enemy, should`nt they be tired as war combatants? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted April 21, 2013 #8 Share Posted April 21, 2013 It won't be long until we can label any one who resists the agenda an enemy combatant. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted April 21, 2013 #9 Share Posted April 21, 2013 A combatant is someone who takes part in an armed conflict. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted April 21, 2013 #10 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If a citizen 'goes over to the other side' so to speak, then uses violent armed conflict in an attempt to overthrow the United States (via terrorist attacks) wouldn't that make them a traitor as well as an enemy combatant? I'm not a lawyer, but one could also pose the argument that when this young man took the oath of citizenship last year he was essentially *lying*...so said citizenship might not be valid? This doesn't seem to me to be a clear cut issue by any means. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spud the mackem Posted April 21, 2013 #11 Share Posted April 21, 2013 There are thousands like these two in every civilised country in the world, just waiting to do as much harm and damage as possible,I believe they are called "sleepers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted April 21, 2013 #12 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If they are classified as enemy combatants it will set a very dangerous precedent. For one they do not belong to an enemy nation, no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. They are individuals who as far as we know right now acted as individuals. The younger brother will be charged as a terrorist, as he should. Unless someone travels to the united states with the expressed purpose (and being commissioned by a foreign nation) they should be charged under criminal law. ~Thanato 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted April 21, 2013 #13 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Neither the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh Amendments specify that they apply only to 'citizens'. "The People" and "no person" is the language. All that garbage about 'enemy combatants' is sophistry generated by Bush & Company. Corrupt the language, and you can corrupt the thought process. Mission accomplished. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted April 21, 2013 #14 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If a citizen 'goes over to the other side' so to speak, then uses violent armed conflict in an attempt to overthrow the United States (via terrorist attacks) wouldn't that make them a traitor as well as an enemy combatant? I'm not a lawyer, but one could also pose the argument that when this young man took the oath of citizenship last year he was essentially *lying*...so said citizenship might not be valid? This doesn't seem to me to be a clear cut issue by any means. You took the words right fom me. If the links to al queda or any foreign influence turn out true then without a doubt he's a traitor. And if he's defected from the US in favor of a foreign enemy then enemy combatant sounds right to me. I have a real bad feeling this (insert vile term here) is going to be portrayed as a victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted April 21, 2013 #15 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Don't you need an actual state of war for traitors and enemy combatants to exist? Has there been an actual declaration of war? Or is this just presidents sending troops out on their own personal perogative? If the latter then whatever term is used is also presidential personal perogative and an ignoring of our Constitution. Funny how the party who screams the most that they will defend our Constitution are the first to want to trash it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted April 21, 2013 #16 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I believe the way the law currently works is the "surviving" bomber can have his citizenship revoked AFTER being convicted of a felony. So there is real law that already addresses this and it should not be altered. They were naturalized and that would be a immigration issue. Why were they naturalized ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah65 Posted April 21, 2013 #17 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I vote criminal. Just curious as I am not glued to the news on this tragedy... Has there been a manifesto or statement found? What little I have heard about their facebook/social media was pretty bland. Were they killing for Allah? Were they trying to make a political statement? Seriously, I am asking as I have not looked into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted April 21, 2013 #18 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I vote criminal. Just curious as I am not glued to the news on this tragedy... Has there been a manifesto or statement found? What little I have heard about their facebook/social media was pretty bland. Were they killing for Allah? Were they trying to make a political statement? Seriously, I am asking as I have not looked into it. That's all yet to be known but its looking more likely that this was the work of radical Islam. The Russian government knew it two years ago. Our FBI was asked by them to look into it and somehow he was cleared. Details on that still unclear. An uncle claims to have kicked the older one out of his house sometime ago for his ever increasing radical Islamic views. Lots of things are still unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted April 21, 2013 #19 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) If we adhere strictly to our rights in these cases then it becomes a suicide pact for our freedoms. If we begin monkeying about with them then the same thing can happen. It seems we are doomed to die the death of a thousand cuts - all to the uproarious applause of our enemies. Nicely done. MORITURI TE SALUTAMUS But the world should pardon us if we take a few with us, eh? Edited April 21, 2013 by and then 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted April 21, 2013 #20 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Don't you need an actual state of war for traitors and enemy combatants to exist? Has there been an actual declaration of war? Or is this just presidents sending troops out on their own personal perogative? If the latter then whatever term is used is also presidential personal perogative and an ignoring of our Constitution. Funny how the party who screams the most that they will defend our Constitution are the first to want to trash it. This all goes WAY beyond party politics, man. This will be the END of our country if we cannot change course and the idiots in DC of both stripes, are oblivious to anything but their own egos. With very few exceptions - and they are powerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted April 21, 2013 #21 Share Posted April 21, 2013 There may be a bit of misunderstanding in all of this. There is a difference between 'enemy combatant' and an 'unlawful combatant'. An enemy combatant can be tried by a military tribunal though an unlawful combatant can still receive the rights of a fair trial. I could see the possibility of trying Dzhokar Tsarnaev as an unlawful combatant however they would have to show that he was more than a mislead and manipulated teen in all of this in my opinion. This is a slippery slope, and one that I am not fond of at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted April 21, 2013 #22 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Can't we just make it easy and try him as a traitor, since he was a legal citizen, and put him to death? And the misled teen thing... I refuse to make this guy a victim of any sorts. It's not like he was tricked into driving the get away car when his friends went into a store and robbed it without him knowing or gave someone a poison drink while being unaware. He carried a bomb on his person and set it in the the middle of a crowd with the intent to detonate it and kill people. Who cares if he was manipulated? He still did it. If he was all we need to know is that he's guilty and who manipulated him. Naïveté shouldn't excuse criminal actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted April 21, 2013 #23 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Don't you need an actual state of war for traitors and enemy combatants to exist? Has there been an actual declaration of war? Or is this just presidents sending troops out on their own personal perogative? If the latter then whatever term is used is also presidential personal perogative and an ignoring of our Constitution. Funny how the party who screams the most that they will defend our Constitution are the first to want to trash it. Trashing the Constitution is a bipartisan effort. They rather "take turns", just for show. Usually they work in concert, trashing the Constitution, along with the other 2 branches. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryinrea Posted April 21, 2013 #24 Share Posted April 21, 2013 When we let our emotions dictate policy or our freedoms as a nation we have falling, since with a free state emotions should, not overrule the contract we have with government. Yes he did a terrible thing but he is a Citizen of the US and thus deserves the same rights as everyone else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted April 21, 2013 #25 Share Posted April 21, 2013 He deserves death by crude explosive but yes I guess he's entitled to Miranda rights. I'm more than ready to throw up upon hearing what his defense attorney and the media says to portray him as a victim. There's already a freejahar twitter feed being supported by people I feel are worthy of some inquisition by authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now