Why can't states prosecute the war on terror?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by ihopehefails, Apr 1, 2010.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
     
  2. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +105
    Doesn't terror threat fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI? Does all states have to make overlapping laws on laws on a federate level? In all cases? Also, every state does not have death penalty in the scope of their sentences.
    And wouldn't that mean every state would have to administer intellegence on a whole new level, if they are going to classify individuals as members of al-queda?
     
  3. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    All states DO have anti-terror legislation if, by "anti-terror legislation," you mean laws against flying planes into tall buildings, sending antrhax to people in the mail, blowing yourself up in a public place, etc. Do any one of those things in any state, and I'll guarantee you - you will be sent away for a long, long time.

    Now - you mention a law against "any member of Al Quaeda entering their jurisdiciton." If THAT's your definition of "anti terror legislation," then you might have a problem. I don't think a law preventing someone from going into a state merely because of their racial, religious or ethnic origin, would pass constitutional muster.

    I am somewhat amused at your phrase, "tried and hung immediately." If we're going to go about it that way, why waste time with a trial? ;)

    Good OP, however. Not a bad thought. Just a tad extreme.
     
  4. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    17,072
    Thanks Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +3,851
    States? What states?

    Oh, those states ....well, Ape Lincoln and the 17th Amendment turned them into mere provinces.

    Thank you for asking. Next question, please.

    .:eek:
     
  5. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?

    I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2010
  6. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:

    That pesky Constitution, I'm afraid. First Amendment. People are free to belong to any organization they choose in this country - even those that advocate violent overthrow of the government. Unless and until they actually engage in violent overthrow (or attempts to do same), they can come and go as they please.

    Suppose an Al Quaeda member is walking down a street in Los Angeles. Should he be arrested? What for? How do you prove he intends to do harm to our country - merely by membership in an organization that advocates such? Not enough.

    All of this has been litigated a long, long time ago.

    I am truly speechless. This is why I am so intrigued by your philosophy on certain issues.
     
  7. Dr Gregg
    Offline

    Dr Gregg BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,901
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +200
    Constitution
     
  8. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Its composed of four pages. Can you tell me what part of the constitution prohibits states from doing this?
     
  9. Douger
    Offline

    Douger BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,323
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not fucking there !
    Ratings:
    +915
    Exactly.
    The United#by force# States of Empire.
     
  10. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    The first amendment refers directly to legislative acts of congress not legislative acts of any state government so the first amendment is void on the state level.

    What if that organization happen to belong to another government that declared war on the United States such as their armed forces. What if one of those members of that armed force happen to be on American soil? Should we wait until they open fire before we arrest them or should we assume that they are here with the intention to do harm and should be arrested before then?

    What if that organization happen to not belong to a nation state and were somalia pirates? What happens if they happen to belong to Al-quieda?

    Why shouldn't our government, which is established for the people, be able to arrest people who are not a part of this country at will in order to protect the people that is under its authority?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2010

Share This Page