OBL's son in law caught and Obama wants to give him legal rights

[JoeB131]

so your contention is that the constitution applies to those waging war against us or conspiring to kill americans in another country?

can you cite the law that is applicable...thanks

The problem there is if you don't apply the laws of the US to them, you have to apply the laws of International Law to them, such as the Geneva convention..

Which means they are enemy soldiers and entitled to a LOT more protections than criminal suspects are.

you're right as to the first paragraph, however, i disagree with you on the second. for example...there is no 4th amendment or 6th amendment protections under the geneva convention...

btw...why was it ok for obama to drone kill the AQ guy who was an american citizen... but not shoot this guy on sight?

You mean the one who was in an enemy country, in a terrorist camp?

 

[depotoo]

so your contention is that the constitution applies to those waging war against us or conspiring to kill americans in another country?

can you cite the law that is applicable...thanks

The problem there is if you don't apply the laws of the US to them, you have to apply the laws of International Law to them, such as the Geneva convention..

Which means they are enemy soldiers and entitled to a LOT more protections than criminal suspects are.

you're right as to the first paragraph, however, i disagree with you on the second. for example...there is no 4th amendment or 6th amendment protections under the geneva convention...

btw...why was it ok for obama to drone kill the AQ guy who was an american citizen... but not shoot this guy on sight?

and why was the drone kill ok, if he hadn't received his due rights first, particularly being a US citizen?

 

[Yurt]

The problem there is if you don't apply the laws of the US to them, you have to apply the laws of International Law to them, such as the Geneva convention..

Which means they are enemy soldiers and entitled to a LOT more protections than criminal suspects are.

you're right as to the first paragraph, however, i disagree with you on the second. for example...there is no 4th amendment or 6th amendment protections under the geneva convention...

btw...why was it ok for obama to drone kill the AQ guy who was an american citizen... but not shoot this guy on sight?

and why was the drone kill ok, if he hadn't received his due rights first, particularly being a US citizen?

ummm....that was my question

 

[Yurt]

The problem there is if you don't apply the laws of the US to them, you have to apply the laws of International Law to them, such as the Geneva convention..

Which means they are enemy soldiers and entitled to a LOT more protections than criminal suspects are.

you're right as to the first paragraph, however, i disagree with you on the second. for example...there is no 4th amendment or 6th amendment protections under the geneva convention...

btw...why was it ok for obama to drone kill the AQ guy who was an american citizen... but not shoot this guy on sight?

You mean the one who was in an enemy country, in a terrorist camp?

yes. where was this guy caught? i thought someone said he was caught outside of the US.

 

[Political Junky]

I didn't realize the US Constitution was written for foreigners in foreign lands.

You should realize that it is.

Anyone in American (NOT what he said) custody enjoys a great many rights provided by the Constitution.

so your contention is that the constitution applies to those waging war against us or conspiring to kill americans in another country?

can you cite the law that is applicable...thanks

Cons seem to prefer the terrorists' own methods of public execution.
We're better than that.

 

[Yurt]

You should realize that it is.

Anyone in American (NOT what he said) custody enjoys a great many rights provided by the Constitution.

so your contention is that the constitution applies to those waging war against us or conspiring to kill americans in another country?

can you cite the law that is applicable...thanks

Cons seem to prefer the terrorists' own methods of public execution.
We're better than that.

non sequitur.... junky

no surprise you couldn't actually answer the question

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't realize the US Constitution was written for foreigners in foreign lands.

You should realize that it is.

Anyone in American custody enjoys a great many rights provided by the Constitution.

oh please, that thinking was started under Clinton and guess where it got us?
Anyway, if they are enemy combatants they are to be tried by military tribunals, as Congress passed and the Supreme Court upheld.

Or as the President decides otherwise, under his war time powers as commander in chief.

 

[JoeB131]

you're right as to the first paragraph, however, i disagree with you on the second. for example...there is no 4th amendment or 6th amendment protections under the geneva convention...

btw...why was it ok for obama to drone kill the AQ guy who was an american citizen... but not shoot this guy on sight?

You mean the one who was in an enemy country, in a terrorist camp?

yes. where was this guy caught? i thought someone said he was caught outside of the US.

I know your Obama Derangement Syndrome Horribly confuses you, where you are all for terrorists he killed being denied rights, and then ones he captured alive getting rights.

Why don't you just admit, whatever Obama is for you're against... then we can just dispense with the semantics.

 

[Sallow]

I didn't realize the US Constitution was written for foreigners in foreign lands.

You should realize that it is.

Anyone in American (NOT what he said) custody enjoys a great many rights provided by the Constitution.

so your contention is that the constitution applies to those waging war against us or conspiring to kill americans in another country?

can you cite the law that is applicable...thanks

Case law? I don't need to cite case law..it's in the Constitution.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

 

[Yurt]

You mean the one who was in an enemy country, in a terrorist camp?

yes. where was this guy caught? i thought someone said he was caught outside of the US.

I know your Obama Derangement Syndrome Horribly confuses you, where you are all for terrorists he killed being denied rights, and then ones he captured alive getting rights.

Why don't you just admit, whatever Obama is for you're against... then we can just dispense with the semantics.

so you can't answer the question or engage in the discussion so you resort to lies and insults.

you're a tool, nothing more.

 

[Yurt]

You should realize that it is.

Anyone in American (NOT what he said) custody enjoys a great many rights provided by the Constitution.

so your contention is that the constitution applies to those waging war against us or conspiring to kill americans in another country?

can you cite the law that is applicable...thanks

Case law? I don't need to cite case law..it's in the Constitution.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

wrong cite. that is the P & I clause which has nothing to do with what is being discussed. you really don't understand what is being discussed. further, you can't read. he is not talking about american citizens.

 

[Yurt]

FYI...the P&I clause does not apply to the federal government, hence, why it has zero to do with the discussion.

 

[HomeInspect]

OBL's son in law caught and Obama wants to give him legal rights


The Constitution is a bitch

Funny how Obama picks and chooses when to abide by it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bin Laden's son-in-law captured, charged in US with conspiring to kill Americans | Fox News

Obama is a retard. The son in law should be sent to Gitmo, and treated as a enemy combatant. He should be interrogated and US authorites should try and get intelligence from him to stop more terrorist attacks.

He shouldn't have the right to remain silent

We need intelligence information now. Instead Obama does the unintelligent

IMO he should be tried in a civilian court and if found guilty of terrorist attacks and or the murder of Americans he should be sent to a supermax prison for life. See:

The World?s Most Secure Prison: ADX Florence | Sometimes Interesting

Our nation should set the example for civilization and not give in to emotional needs for retribution. What Mike suggests simply perpetuates hate and mistrust, leading to more ideologues willing to commit suicide to kill Americans here and abroad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Common humanity demands the prisoners of war and captured criminals will be treated according to law.

The tribunals have been slow, costly, and most inefficient. The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient.

 

[edthecynic]

Bin Laden's son-in-law captured, charged in US with conspiring to kill Americans | Fox News

Obama is a retard. The son in law should be sent to Gitmo, and treated as a enemy combatant. He should be interrogated and US authorites should try and get intelligence from him to stop more terrorist attacks.

He shouldn't have the right to remain silent

We need intelligence information now. Instead Obama does the unintelligent

You do realize he has already been interrogated and much intelligence has been gathered, don't you???
Oh that's Right, you are a Misinformation Voter who gets only disinformation from the Fox Rumor Mill.

 

[Yurt]

Common humanity demands the prisoners of war and captured criminals will be treated according to law.

The tribunals have been slow, costly, and most inefficient. The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient.

1. true

2. do you have a cite?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't need a cite, bub, when it is common knowledge, as you apparently admit in your comment above.

 

[Yurt]

figures, you can't back up your claims

how droll

FYI...not common knowledge and even if it was, it is YOUR duty to back up YOUR claim as you have often said to others. funny little dishonest double standard you have farkey.

 

[JoeB131]

yes. where was this guy caught? i thought someone said he was caught outside of the US.

I know your Obama Derangement Syndrome Horribly confuses you, where you are all for terrorists he killed being denied rights, and then ones he captured alive getting rights.

Why don't you just admit, whatever Obama is for you're against... then we can just dispense with the semantics.

so you can't answer the question or engage in the discussion so you resort to lies and insults.

you're a tool, nothing more.

I think I hit the nail right on the head.

On one hand, you are whining that we are affording OBL's son in law all the rights of law.

and..

On the other hand, you are whining that we blew up some terrorist in Yemen who happened to be at a camp with a bunch of other terrorists we were trying to nail.

It's like you want to have it both ways because you are obsessed with this President being.... oh, I don't know... black?