What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why can't states prosecute the war on terror?

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
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.
 

ErikViking

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
129
Points
85
Location
Stockholm - Sweden
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.

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?
 

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
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.

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.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,744
Reaction score
2,466
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
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.

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:
 
OP
ihopehefails

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
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.

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.

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:

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
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.

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.

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.

Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:

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?

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 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.

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

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
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.

Constitution
 

Douger

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
12,321
Reaction score
936
Points
0
Location
Not fucking there !
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.

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:
Exactly.
The United#by force# States of Empire.
 
OP
ihopehefails

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
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.

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.

Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:

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?

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 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.

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

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:

slackjawed

Self deported
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,307
Reaction score
650
Points
153
Location
15th congressional district of Arizona
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.

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.

Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:

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?

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 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.

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

Shades of Judge Roy Bean there, except Bean said he would have a "fair trial then hang 'em".
If someone breaks a state law, they can certainly be prosecuted under state law. I don't think belonging to al qaida is a crime in most states, reprehensible as it is.
Most states turn over criminals to the feds for prosecution when applicable. The feds have a reputation for tough prosecution and tough sentencing. I would also think that the federal government paying for the cost of the trial and imprisonment (or hanging) is an attractive option to the states.
 
OP
ihopehefails

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
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.

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 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.

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

Shades of Judge Roy Bean there, except Bean said he would have a "fair trial then hang 'em".
If someone breaks a state law, they can certainly be prosecuted under state law. I don't think belonging to al qaida is a crime in most states, reprehensible as it is.
Most states turn over criminals to the feds for prosecution when applicable. The feds have a reputation for tough prosecution and tough sentencing. I would also think that the federal government paying for the cost of the trial and imprisonment (or hanging) is an attractive option to the states.

Interesting points but what if the federal government isn't prosecuting the war on terror aggressive enough? Wouldn't states be obligated to protect their own citizens in a manor that they think is best for them? In this case, it might be immediate arrest for any member of a foreign terrorist organization that intends of harming the one of the United States of America. I would think a state is allowed to protect itself in a manor that it think is best.
 

slackjawed

Self deported
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,307
Reaction score
650
Points
153
Location
15th congressional district of Arizona
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.

Shades of Judge Roy Bean there, except Bean said he would have a "fair trial then hang 'em".
If someone breaks a state law, they can certainly be prosecuted under state law. I don't think belonging to al qaida is a crime in most states, reprehensible as it is.
Most states turn over criminals to the feds for prosecution when applicable. The feds have a reputation for tough prosecution and tough sentencing. I would also think that the federal government paying for the cost of the trial and imprisonment (or hanging) is an attractive option to the states.

Interesting points but what if the federal government isn't prosecuting the war on terror aggressive enough? Wouldn't states be obligated to protect their own citizens in a manor that they think is best for them? In this case, it might be immediate arrest for any member of a foreign terrorist organization that intends of harming the one of the United States of America. I would think a state is allowed to protect itself in a manor that it think is best.

I would think that if state laws are being broken that states can prosecute those breaking the law.
There are several cases of people being convicted of state crimes, serving their time, and then tried for crimes in other states, as well as federal crimes.
 

slackjawed

Self deported
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,307
Reaction score
650
Points
153
Location
15th congressional district of Arizona
This is what a "quick trial then hang 'em" looks like, in case you were wondering.

This picture is from legendsofthewest.com, but locally it is pretty famous. This was taken a few miles outside the town I live in in 1874. The guy on the horse (the live one) is Sherrif Commador Perry Owens, a famous AZ lawman. The photographer is unknown, but the story goes that the guy being hung was caught with 'running irons' by some of the Slaughter boys and hung. (the slaughters were a pioneer family here) Sherriff Owens came by and asked why they hung him, and was satisfied when the 'running irons' were produced. Those running irons are still on display at the town museum.

While I would like to see the al qaida gang hung up around the world like this, I don't want to see the legal system that would allow it to happen.
 

Attachments

  • $OldWestHanging-500.jpg
    $OldWestHanging-500.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 42

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top