Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, not the claim of an assassination of the president... the expectation said would-be assassin is black.well well, look who found there calling. I'm guessing you're a white liberal [I sincerely apologize if you are not]...tell us, what was it you consider to be a poke that lead you to this horrendous find of racism? the claim of assassination of the president?Poke a conservative ^^^, find a racist.
good job on finding the real offense pardner
You called the president a dumb ass...If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.I was thinking of Jose PadillaI'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.Threatening the life of the President is a crime. And in the United States when an American citizen is accused of a crime, they are arrested, and publicly charged, put on trial and if convicted put in an American prison.
What the Trumpette suggested was an illegal Banana Republic style 'disappearance' to Guantanamo Bay- which would be again- illegal and unconstitutional. And this is not the first unconstitutional proposal made in this thread.
Trumpettes are quick to suggest pissing on the American constitution when it comes to their Dear Leader.
LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.
The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.
If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.
Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.
Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.
Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.
Yep and proud of it. People blindly supporting parties are sheep. People blindly supporting a person, to the destruction of the values of their party are not to be trusted in America or anywhere else.You called the president a dumb ass...If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.I was thinking of Jose PadillaI'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.
LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.
The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.
If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.
Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.
Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.
Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.
That makes you an independent!!
View attachment 300416
Well, if the suspect is a Black, that's one reason for the Leftist Branch of the Lamestream Media to bury it...
And, if the suspect is a Muslim, that's two reasons for the Leftist Branch of the Lamestream Media to bury it...
So...
Why didn't the Rightwing Branch of the Lamestream Media play it up?
Perhaps the case is weak?
Perhaps the threat was not credible?
Perhaps they don't want to give the suspect and his ideology any more air time than absolutely necessary?
The "expectation said"No, not the claim of an assassination of the president... the expectation said would-be assassin is black.
...ok...but the issue is that you don't consider "threat of assassination" to be the problem, you consider it to be a poster repeating what "expectation" said...geez, [your claim is so ridiculous that repeating it when/while mocking it feels embarrassing]...Yep and proud of it. People blindly supporting parties are sheep. People blindly supporting a person, to the destruction of the values of their party are not to be trusted in America or anywhere else.You called the president a dumb ass...If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.I was thinking of Jose PadillaLOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.
The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.
If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.
Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.
Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.
Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.
That makes you an independent!!
View attachment 300416
Now that was funny.I got your trumpette, hangin. Go ahead and blow it.No, I figure you for one of the brain dead liberals they correctly scorn of this board.Seriously, Syriously. You need to f#ck off lumping me with the Trumpettes. I am an Independent @sshole, thank you very much.I love how you Trumpettes think defending the Constitution is 'whining'
Seriously if I lump you with the brainwashed Trumpettes it is because you post like the brainwashed Trumpettes.
You Trumpettes do tend to project.
Yep and proud of it. People blindly supporting parties are sheep. People blindly supporting a person, to the destruction of the values of their party are not to be trusted in America or anywhere else.You called the president a dumb ass...If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.I was thinking of Jose Padilla
On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:
Declaring that without clear congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant," the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.[20] However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]
- Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
- he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
- he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
- he was a continuing threat to American security.
He was later actually charge and convicted on aiding terrorism charges due to connection to Al Qaeda , sentenced to 17 years, later upgraded to 21 years.
If they see fit, they can definitely arrest you without habeas corpus, and shift your location without telling anyone, so that attempt to file habeas not in correct court or correct jailer named. I liked the outcome but the process was less than what the framers had in mind.
Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.
Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.
Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.
That makes you an independent!!
View attachment 300416
Intelligent people understand the proper word is "calculatingly" not "blindly"
Yep and proud of it. People blindly supporting parties are sheep. People blindly supporting a person, to the destruction of the values of their party are not to be trusted in America or anywhere else.You called the president a dumb ass...If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.Thank you- I had completely forgotten about Jose Padilla.
Personally I think that holding Padilla without charges was unconstitutional and I think it was wrong. The courts clearly had mixed reaction to it and it was never fully adjudicated. But I think that it is wrong to hold any American for crimes committed in America with no habeas corpus.
Just as I think that advocating that anyone who threatens the life of President Trump should be held outside our justice system. If someone commits a crime in America- they should face American justice.
That makes you an independent!!
View attachment 300416
Intelligent people understand the proper word is "calculatingly" not "blindly"
Nothing calculating about it. I am 65 and been watching politic since i joined the service back in 77. Never seen such undeserved blind following of a republican or democratic leader of such low ethics, lying, propaganda spewing and lack of responsibility in my life. Goes against the literal meaning of the word "conservative", which that party used to be known for.
Checkers too boring. Am far better at chess. If you think your "golden calf" is a chess player, you need to re-evaluate. He is far too temperamental and impulsive for the game. He is just a reality game show host, playing to the crowd. Reality game show enthusiasts are just about the lowest common denominator of non-thinking society.Yep and proud of it. People blindly supporting parties are sheep. People blindly supporting a person, to the destruction of the values of their party are not to be trusted in America or anywhere else.You called the president a dumb ass...If anyone threatens, much less makes an attempt on this dumbass president or any other, they are to far gone for me to give a crap, how deep and dark the sling their butt ends up in.
That makes you an independent!!
View attachment 300416
Intelligent people understand the proper word is "calculatingly" not "blindly"
Nothing calculating about it. I am 65 and been watching politic since i joined the service back in 77. Never seen such undeserved blind following of a republican or democratic leader of such low ethics, lying, propaganda spewing and lack of responsibility in my life. Goes against the literal meaning of the word "conservative", which that party used to be known for.
If chess is too hard for you try checkers.
You are late...I saw this story last week.....via "the media"
Vermin, the national media is silent on it.
You are late...I saw this story last week.....via "the media"
Vermin, the national media is silent on it.
You are late...I saw this story last week.....via "the media"
Vermin, the national media is silent on it.
that is because the national media is evil and will ultimately take down Trump....
Your incessant whining is powerless against them...powerless I say!!
View attachment 300509
You are late...I saw this story last week.....via "the media"
Vermin, the national media is silent on it.
Sez the gun banner.I'm not Trumpette. I don't even like or approve of the guy in general. I despise would be assassins and traitors far more. This guy is no better than a domestic terrorist. I did not write the statute on special rendition. It quite possibly is unconstitutional, but if not used again in times not fraught with high tension and national fear it will lie dormant until a time of emergency and be used, possibly harmfully to many Americans and our constitutional style of governance. Sorry if I upset you, Buttercup.
LOL- no snowflake, you didn't upset me. I despise would be assassins and traitors also. But if they are Americans, then they are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no law that allows an American citizen on American soil to be 'disappeared' and whisked out of the United States and be deprived of their Constitutional rights.
That would not be 'possibly unconsitutional' that is something that any American would recognize as a blatant violation of the Constitution.
The only possible exception would be in time of war when habeas corpus is suspended- and frankly Lincoln got that wrong
Would you like some cheese with that whine. What a brainwashed liberal loser.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love how you Trumpettes think defending the Constitution is 'whining'
Your not defending it. You idiots are disgracing it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah because to you Trumpettes pointing out the Bill of Rights is 'disgracing' the Constitution. Good little Trumpettes like you just wipe your ass with the Constitution.
You are late...I saw this story last week.....via "the media"
Vermin, the national media is silent on it.
that is because the national media is evil and will ultimately take down Trump....
Your incessant whining is powerless against them...powerless I say!!
View attachment 300509
They won't take down President Trump
They will simply keep people like you intensely stupid.
Correct. This thread is a steaming turd.As I understand it presidents get death threats all the time...
LOLOLThe "expectation said"No, not the claim of an assassination of the president... the expectation said would-be assassin is black.
you saw skin color and right away red flags and and fire works went off in your mind while the word "assassination" played absolutely no part in your response...that is what you have been conditioned to do, no thinking at all involved, just reflexive, mindless, name calling and finger pointing, when you come across that you know even through a keyboard there is a white liberal parroting the liberals favorite mantra.
