Did Michele Bachmann say foreigners have no rights?

[bripat9643]

She said they have no Miranda rights. She didn't say they have ho rights whatsoever.

Every last president before Obama agreed with her position.

Does Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann really believe foreigners have no rights under American law? Apparently so, according to her remarks during the Ames, Iowa debate August 11.

Fox News' Chris Wallace asked her why Rep. Ron Paul was wrong to insist that trials be held for terror suspects: "You say that we don't win the war on terror by closing Guantanamo and reading Miranda rights to terrorists. Congressman Paul says terrorists have committed a crime and should be given due process in civilian courts. Could you please tell Congressman Paul why he is wrong?"

Bachmann, who calls herself a "constitutional conservative," responded: "Because, simply, terrorists who commit acts against United States citizens, people who come from foreign countries to do that, do not have any right under our Constitution to Miranda rights."

GOP Debate: Michele Bachmann Says Foreigners Have No Rights

The author of this article thinks so, but to be fair I think she was simply referring to terrorists and not foreigners in general. That being said, Ron Paul's response to this was correct: "She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts. But therefore, a judgment has to be made. They are ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist?"

 

[Richard-H]

First, terrorist are organized indescriminant mass murderers. They should not be raised to the level of soldiers in any way.

Second, the best precedent we have in how to deal with terrorists is how piracy was dealt with back in the 18th & 19th century (Military tribunals and hangings)

Third, people who are members of a terrorist organization and/or who willfully support terrorists should be considered terrorists.

Fourth, there should be strong guidlines for distinguishing, enemy combatants and soldiers, from terrorists.

 

[California Girl]

Except that that's nowhere in the Constitution.

You are aware that the world doesn't function in accordance with our Constitution, right? It's the US Constitution - not the world's.

Only Americans get their Constitutional rights. Fool.

You are aware that I'm not arguing that someone who is suspected of a crime somewhere else in the world can rely on our Constitution to protect them? Apparently you're not. I'm discussing crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the United States. The U.S. government is not authorized by the Constitution to deal with a suspected crime differently simply because the suspect is not a U.S. citizen.

It is not authorized to afford non Americans the same rights as Americans either. Kevin, I know you love liberty but your kind of liberty leads to anarchy. Libertarians are so damned naive. You are as bad as Obama, you think if we withdraw from the world, the world will leave us alone. It will not. It didn't work last time - in fact our isolationism was one of the causes of WWII. Stop being ignorant.

 

[tonystewart1]

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

Miranda is not in the constitiution. Its some of the legislation that the SCOTUS has handed down to us.

American courts are for american citizens. Foreign nationals should be deported after commiting a crime unless it is terrorism then they are and enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war.

Bachman was doing what all politicians do. She was sidestepping the issue and put her foot in her mouth.

What is the threshold for determining when a crime officially becomes terrorism?

Plenty of foreigners murder people in this country. It's terrifying whether one person is killed or 3000 people are killed.

Where does a murder end and terrorism begin?

When the intent changes from personal gain to terrorizing the people to effect political change.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

Miranda is not in the constitiution. Its some of the legislation that the SCOTUS has handed down to us.

American courts are for american citizens. Foreign nationals should be deported after commiting a crime unless it is terrorism then they are and enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war.

Bachman was doing what all politicians do. She was sidestepping the issue and put her foot in her mouth.

What is the threshold for determining when a crime officially becomes terrorism?

Plenty of foreigners murder people in this country. It's terrifying whether one person is killed or 3000 people are killed.

Where does a murder end and terrorism begin?

When the intent changes from personal gain to terrorizing the people to effect political change.

And who gets to make this determination?

 

[tonystewart1]

What is the threshold for determining when a crime officially becomes terrorism?

Plenty of foreigners murder people in this country. It's terrifying whether one person is killed or 3000 people are killed.

Where does a murder end and terrorism begin?

When the intent changes from personal gain to terrorizing the people to effect political change.

And who gets to make this determination?

I guess it would be a military court. Anyone can tell the difference between crime and terrorism. Would you have given the 9/11 terrorist due process and maybe housed them in a regular jail? Give them life in prison with parole after 20 years? If a person comes into our country to commit an act of terrorism they have given up their right to breath.

 

[Paulie]

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

Miranda is not in the constitiution. Its some of the legislation that the SCOTUS has handed down to us.

American courts are for american citizens. Foreign nationals should be deported after commiting a crime unless it is terrorism then they are and enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war.

Bachman was doing what all politicians do. She was sidestepping the issue and put her foot in her mouth.

What is the threshold for determining when a crime officially becomes terrorism?

Plenty of foreigners murder people in this country. It's terrifying whether one person is killed or 3000 people are killed.

Where does a murder end and terrorism begin?

When the intent changes from personal gain to terrorizing the people to effect political change.

What if the political change they're trying to affect is getting us to launch massive wars we'll fight perpetually while indebting ourselves trillions of dollars in the process until we either literally go bankrupt or print so much money to fund it that we destroy the dollar?

They know we're not going to cut entitlements, the leaders of the terrorist organizations are not stupid people, they know what they're doing. It's easy to find a willing patsy to do their dirty work for them.

You gotta be a little smarter than the terrorists.

 

[kaz]

"We the people..." is the preamble, and the preamble has no legal authority

No it doesn't, but it does say who the document is written behalf of. It starts with We the People and never mentions it's referring to anyone legally or illegally physically residing here. It's written by We the People to state the specific rights that We The People are ceding to the Federal government. Legal or illegal aliens have neither ceded powers to the Federal government nor are they referenced in the Constitution. They are protected by Congress and it's their job to legislate how they are protected.

As for Miranda rights, that's not an invention that's simply being informed of your constitutional rights. And Miranda rights are given to people suspected of committing crimes, not criminals themselves. Remember in the U.S. we presume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

I know what Miranda is and there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it's being read to suspected criminals. There is also nothing that justifies reversing a conviction or the admission of evidence if it's not read to a suspect. That was yet another case of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Congress had the right, but only over Federal law enforcement. The Supreme Court had none.

My reference on protecting criminals is the reality of Miranda is that's what it's done. I do not advocate in any way violating the Constitutional rights of defendents innocent or guilty. But Miranda isn't one of them and a lot of confessions and evidence are wrongly tossed as if it is. You want Miranda to be Constitutionally required? The Constitution says how. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. 5/9 making up a Constitutional right was yet another Constitutional abomination by the supreme court. I won't support amending the constitution to require it, but I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it were done legally rather then the Unconstitutional way it was done.

 

[Paulie]

When the intent changes from personal gain to terrorizing the people to effect political change.

And who gets to make this determination?

I guess it would be a military court. Anyone can tell the difference between crime and terrorism. Would you have given the 9/11 terrorist due process and maybe housed them in a regular jail? Give them life in prison with parole after 20 years? If a person comes into our country to commit an act of terrorism they have given up their right to breath.

No, anyone can not just tell the difference between crime and terrorism. An investigation needs to ensue after the act to discover what a perpetrator's intention was.

If an illegal Phillippino man goes to a crowded shopping area and kills a bunch of people, how do I know if it was for political purposes or he was just a lunatic who wanted to see how many people he could kill before he was subdued or killed? And if he wasn't killed, then what? We hold him indefinitely in a secret location without charges and torture him until he says whatever he feels like he needs to say to get the torture to stop?

It's not always cut and dry that the act is political terrorism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When the intent changes from personal gain to terrorizing the people to effect political change.

And who gets to make this determination?

I guess it would be a military court. Anyone can tell the difference between crime and terrorism. Would you have given the 9/11 terrorist due process and maybe housed them in a regular jail? Give them life in prison with parole after 20 years? If a person comes into our country to commit an act of terrorism they have given up their right to breath.

I believe they were dead, so I wouldn't have housed them anywhere.

 

[tonystewart1]

And who gets to make this determination?

I guess it would be a military court. Anyone can tell the difference between crime and terrorism. Would you have given the 9/11 terrorist due process and maybe housed them in a regular jail? Give them life in prison with parole after 20 years? If a person comes into our country to commit an act of terrorism they have given up their right to breath.

I believe they were dead, so I wouldn't have housed them anywhere.

It was a hypothetical question and looking at your response you dont have an answer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess it would be a military court. Anyone can tell the difference between crime and terrorism. Would you have given the 9/11 terrorist due process and maybe housed them in a regular jail? Give them life in prison with parole after 20 years? If a person comes into our country to commit an act of terrorism they have given up their right to breath.

I believe they were dead, so I wouldn't have housed them anywhere.

It was a hypothetical question and looking at your response you dont have an answer.

Actually I do. Timothy McVeigh blew up a building and got a fair trial and held in a domestic prison. We didn't send him off to Cuba for torture. I would do the same for any other person suspected of a similar crime, because that's the only thing the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to do.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution starts "We the People of the United States." I am not advocating that foreigners should not have rights, only that Bachman's right they don't have Constitutional rights other then what we chose to give them. We meaning congress. In particular that foreigners overseas have Constitutional rights is preposterous. As for Miranda, that's a made up right by the Supreme Court anyway. Even Americans don't have that right in the Constitution. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the innocent from government harassment. Miranda is designed to protect criminals from their victims.

"We the people..." is the preamble, and the preamble has no legal authority. It's merely a statement. I think we're looking at this argument from the wrong perspective, however. The federal government has constitutional limits, and it can't do certain things because the Constitution either expressly forbids it or doesn't give it the authority. Now it doesn't make any difference whether the person is American or Canadian that commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the U.S., the federal government is limited by the Constitution in how it can deal with that situation.

As for Miranda rights, that's not an invention that's simply being informed of your constitutional rights. And Miranda rights are given to people suspected of committing crimes, not criminals themselves. Remember in the U.S. we presume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

Libertarians are as bad and damned leftists. Y'all want to bankrupt Americans for the sake of those who have no interest in our country or our Constitution. The preamble defines who 'we' are. It does not pertain to anyone other than Americans. Don't believe me... ask any non Americans. They'll tell you.

Idiot.

I'm also a libertarian. I'm not sure I see this as a libertarian issue particularly either way.

Now as for the Libertarian Party, I agree with you, but I don't consider the Libertarian party to be particularly libertarian. They are more so then the other two Parties. But they are more Party then libertarian.

 

[tonystewart1]

I believe they were dead, so I wouldn't have housed them anywhere.

It was a hypothetical question and looking at your response you dont have an answer.

Actually I do. Timothy McVeigh blew up a building and got a fair trial and held in a domestic prison. We didn't send him off to Cuba for torture. I would do the same for any other person suspected of a similar crime, because that's the only thing the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to do.

Timothy McVeigh was an american citizen. The 9/11 terrorist where not. Timothy had to be affored the rights of a trial.

 

[NoNukes]

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

Miranda is not in the constitiution. Its some of the legislation that the SCOTUS has handed down to us.

American courts are for american citizens. Foreign nationals should be deported after commiting a crime unless it is terrorism then they are and enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war.

Bachman was doing what all politicians do. She was sidestepping the issue and put her foot in her mouth.

Do you not have to prove they committed a crime?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It was a hypothetical question and looking at your response you dont have an answer.

Actually I do. Timothy McVeigh blew up a building and got a fair trial and held in a domestic prison. We didn't send him off to Cuba for torture. I would do the same for any other person suspected of a similar crime, because that's the only thing the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to do.

Timothy McVeigh was an american citizen. The 9/11 terrorist where not. Timothy had to be affored the rights of a trial.

Again, the Constitution simply says persons suspected of a crime, not just U.S. citizens suspected of a crime. However, what about Anwar al-Awlaki? Would you give him a trial, or just have him assassinated like Obama wants to do?

 

[tonystewart1]

The constitiution only protects American citizens; native or naturalized.

Miranda is not in the constitiution. Its some of the legislation that the SCOTUS has handed down to us.

American courts are for american citizens. Foreign nationals should be deported after commiting a crime unless it is terrorism then they are and enemy combatant and subject to the rules of war.

Bachman was doing what all politicians do. She was sidestepping the issue and put her foot in her mouth.

Do you not have to prove they committed a crime?

A foreign national is a guest in our country. We dont need proof just a presumption of guilt. A guest can be asked to leave anytime the host wants to.

 

[tonystewart1]

Actually I do. Timothy McVeigh blew up a building and got a fair trial and held in a domestic prison. We didn't send him off to Cuba for torture. I would do the same for any other person suspected of a similar crime, because that's the only thing the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to do.

Timothy McVeigh was an american citizen. The 9/11 terrorist where not. Timothy had to be affored the rights of a trial.

Again, the Constitution simply says persons suspected of a crime, not just U.S. citizens suspected of a crime. However, what about Anwar al-Awlaki? Would you give him a trial, or just have him assassinated like Obama wants to do?

When did the rights that Ameicans have died to enure become the property of the world. This is our country foreigners have no investment in our country. Anwar al-Awlaki is a turncoat to his country if he really considers himself an American. During a war if a soldier decides he wants to fight for the other side then he will be shot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Timothy McVeigh was an american citizen. The 9/11 terrorist where not. Timothy had to be affored the rights of a trial.

Again, the Constitution simply says persons suspected of a crime, not just U.S. citizens suspected of a crime. However, what about Anwar al-Awlaki? Would you give him a trial, or just have him assassinated like Obama wants to do?

When did the rights that Ameicans have died to enure become the property of the world. This is our country foreigners have no investment in our country. Anwar al-Awlaki is a turncoat to his country if he really considers himself an American. During a war if a soldier decides he wants to fight for the other side then he will be shot.

I believe the idea that our nation was founded upon was something along the lines of all men being created equal with the same inalienable rights. I don't think they only meant Americans. So is that a yes to the assassination option for an American citizen? I thought your argument was that only American citizens have constitutional rights, now it's only certain American citizens have constitutional rights?

 

[tonystewart1]

Again, the Constitution simply says persons suspected of a crime, not just U.S. citizens suspected of a crime. However, what about Anwar al-Awlaki? Would you give him a trial, or just have him assassinated like Obama wants to do?

When did the rights that Ameicans have died to enure become the property of the world. This is our country foreigners have no investment in our country. Anwar al-Awlaki is a turncoat to his country if he really considers himself an American. During a war if a soldier decides he wants to fight for the other side then he will be shot.

I believe the idea that our nation was founded upon was something along the lines of all men being created equal with the same inalienable rights. I don't think they only meant Americans. So is that a yes to the assassination option for an American citizen? I thought your argument was that only American citizens have constitutional rights, now it's only certain American citizens have constitutional rights?

For any american citizen the penalty for treason is death.