Woo ... What a Relief!

[SAYIT]

No, I don't. Do not try to put words in my mouth. Those searches were not "extrajudicial."

According to Cap they were and he has a valid argument. No warrant - no legal search.

That is not accurate.

What is not accurate?

 

[Unkotare]

Concentration camps? Traitor? I can see I've touched a nerve but I am not suggesting we reopen those camps and I reject your characterization of FDR as a traitor.

What do you call someone sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution who blatantly violates the Constitutional rights of Americans and throws over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps? What the hell do you call that?

 

[Unkotare]

According to Cap they were and he has a valid argument. No warrant - no legal search.

That is not accurate.

What is not accurate?

There are provisions for searches without a warrant, and this was one. The search was legal and NOT "extrajudicial."

 

[Unkotare]

BTW, you've read my posts long enough to know you are willfully trying to portray me as something you must know I am not and I'd appreciate if you'd cut the crap.

"Cut the crap"? Do you defend, support, or excuse the villain FDR throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps or not?

 

[SAYIT]

Concentration camps? Traitor? I can see I've touched a nerve but I am not suggesting we reopen those camps and I reject your characterization of FDR as a traitor.

What do you call someone sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution who blatantly violates the Constitutional rights of Americans and throws over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps? What the hell do you call that?

Perhaps abuse of his executive power but he was within his rights as president to act in what he considered to be the country's best interest.
I'm hoping you know what the term "traitor" means and FDR's action did not fit the definition.

 

[SAYIT]

That is not accurate.

What is not accurate?

There are provisions for searches without a warrant, and this was one. The search was legal and NOT "extrajudicial."

You have no way of knowing if all the searches were legal. I assure you some lawsuits will be filed by those who disagree.

 

[SAYIT]

BTW, you've read my posts long enough to know you are willfully trying to portray me as something you must know I am not and I'd appreciate if you'd cut the crap.

"Cut the crap"? Do you defend, support, or excuse the villain FDR throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps or not?

I reject your attempts to paint me as some sort of reactionary knuckle-dragging buffoon. Frankly, I don't know what is stuck up your ass but you have repeatedly been made aware that I referenced the internment camps as an example of historical use (or abuse) of executive power in the interest of public safety in our past. The victims of the extrajudicial actions, the Constitution and the country all survived.
To continue trying to make your bones on this is disingenuous at best and yeah, I'd appreciate if you'd cut the crap.

 

[Montrovant]

This isn't about making life less enjoyable for the 98% of us not interested in slaughtering Americans. It's about making life less convenient for those who promote, plan and perpetrate the Boston Bombings and their supporters. You seem willing to accept casualties even though some relatively painless remedies are available to us. That's like willfully failing to strap a newborn into a car seat.

Curtailing the rights of Muslims is not relatively painless IMO. And while I believe our internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was a travesty, at least it was during an actual war which could be expected to end. The so-called war on terror is an open ended conflict. If we were to suppress the rights of Muslims in the name of safety, unlike during WWII, we could do it indefinitely. There is no way to eradicate terrorism, and I certainly don't think the religion of Islam is going away any time soon.

Now, there may be any number of ways we could try to prevent more attacks. I just don't want to see it done by unconstitutionally singling out a particular segment of the populace and depriving them of their rights. Any suggestions that don't do that, I'd love to hear.

I'm not suggesting internment nor am I suggesting we restrict the rights of all American Muslims but restricting the rights of some is better than picking up the dead and broken bodies after the next attack. I am saying we should be considering what extrajudicial actions we are willing to take now to reduce the risk of that attack because it is in the works as we speak.
It's kinda like why we strap the baby into a car seat. Precaution.

There's too much vagueness involved here. Who ARE we going to restrict the rights of? Who decides someone falls into the restricted rights category? Are we going to add a constitutional amendment to allow for it, or just ignore that and do it anyway?

You also have used the term extrajudicial a number of times. It seems to me you are using it in lieu of illegal. That's what it appears to mean in this conversation. What illegal means should we be considering to prevent an attack?

This isn't like strapping a baby into a car seat. That is a terrible analogy. This is like forcefully strapping an adult into your car, in order to take them somewhere they don't want to go. Sure, the straps may keep them safe in case of a crash....but they are still being forced to go where they do not want to.

The fact is, freedoms come with risk. It seems that you are willing to accept less freedom to alleviate some of that risk (at least in theory) than I and others here are. I don't think that we should circumvent the constitution or our laws in hopes of preventing another attack. Not only do I think it will be less than successful, I accept that allowing people individual freedoms means they may do something terrible before anyone can stop them.

I understand the desire to prevent attacks such as this. I question the efficacy and morality of methods that ignore our constitution or laws.

 

[Montrovant]

Concentration camps? Traitor? I can see I've touched a nerve but I am not suggesting we reopen those camps and I reject your characterization of FDR as a traitor.

What do you call someone sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution who blatantly violates the Constitutional rights of Americans and throws over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps? What the hell do you call that?

It depends on your use of the word traitor. By the constitutional definition, no, his actions were not treasonous.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

This might be a case where deciding what definition of the word is being used is important.

 

[Montrovant]

That is not accurate.

What is not accurate?

There are provisions for searches without a warrant, and this was one. The search was legal and NOT "extrajudicial."

I'm not disagreeing, but do you know the relevant law or has it already been posted in this thread? I thought that home to home searches seemed extreme and likely illegal, but I'm far from an expert on the relevant law.

 

[hortysir]

Followed shortly thereafter by the spics, the spooks, the gooks, the chinks, ETC...

When they become the highest percentage of attacks against American civilians? Yes

I know it's become a bit of a cliché, but the famous Franklin quotation has never rung truer: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.". Suspending the rights of legal residents on the basis of religion, race, age, sex, or any combination of demographic categories is something that should NEVER be tolerated in a free and open society, and here's a good place for a "period". The fact that this point is now considered debatable is a clear indication of just how far American society has fallen from some of the highest principles on which this country was founded.

On a related note: the younger brother was discovered by a citizen who then notified the police of his whereabouts; the capture was in NO WAY the fruition of the trampled rights of the million or so residents of Boston and its surrounding vicinities.

I have no issue with "legal residence"
It's the ones that have either over-stayed their VISAs or not even reported to the schools that have their VISAs attached to

 

[Unkotare]

What is not accurate?

There are provisions for searches without a warrant, and this was one. The search was legal and NOT "extrajudicial."

You have no way of knowing if all the searches were legal.

Yes I do, and the people who actually live there agree.

 

[Unkotare]

What is not accurate?

There are provisions for searches without a warrant, and this was one. The search was legal and NOT "extrajudicial."

I'm not disagreeing, but do you know the relevant law or has it already been posted in this thread? I thought that home to home searches seemed extreme and likely illegal, but I'm far from an expert on the relevant law.

I've spoken with law enforcement and lawyers about it. The legality of the searches will hold up.

 

[Unkotare]

Concentration camps? Traitor? I can see I've touched a nerve but I am not suggesting we reopen those camps and I reject your characterization of FDR as a traitor.

What do you call someone sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution who blatantly violates the Constitutional rights of Americans and throws over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps? What the hell do you call that?

It depends on your use of the word traitor. By the constitutional definition, no, his actions were not treasonous.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

This might be a case where deciding what definition of the word is being used is important.

Throwing over 100,000 innocent Americans into concentration camps at the point of a gun, and keeping them there behind barbed wire and armed guard towers for years isn't "levying war" against the American people in direct violation of the oath of office?

 

[Unkotare]

BTW, you've read my posts long enough to know you are willfully trying to portray me as something you must know I am not and I'd appreciate if you'd cut the crap.

"Cut the crap"? Do you defend, support, or excuse the villain FDR throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps or not?

I reject your attempts to paint me as some sort of reactionary knuckle-dragging buffoon. .

You are painting yourself. Choose your pallet accordingly.

 

[Unkotare]

Concentration camps? Traitor? I can see I've touched a nerve but I am not suggesting we reopen those camps and I reject your characterization of FDR as a traitor.

What do you call someone sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution who blatantly violates the Constitutional rights of Americans and throws over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps? What the hell do you call that?

Perhaps abuse of his executive power but he was within his rights as president to act in what he considered to be the country's best interest. .

It turns out that he wasn't, according to the US Supreme Court.

 

[Montrovant]

What do you call someone sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution who blatantly violates the Constitutional rights of Americans and throws over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps? What the hell do you call that?

It depends on your use of the word traitor. By the constitutional definition, no, his actions were not treasonous.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

This might be a case where deciding what definition of the word is being used is important.

Throwing over 100,000 innocent Americans into concentration camps at the point of a gun, and keeping them there behind barbed wire and armed guard towers for years isn't "levying war" against the American people in direct violation of the oath of office?

No.

There was no levying war against the United States. At most there was war against Japanese Americans, and even then it could be argued that it was something other than war.

This was something done with the general approval of the government and the majority of the population, if I'm not mistaken. While that most certainly does not make it right or moral, it is difficult to consider it warring against people if they support you.

Was it unconstitutional? I think so (although the SC did at least sanction part of it at the time I believe). Was it reprehensible? Again I'd say yes. Was it an act of treason? No.

 

[laughinReaper]

1293 days, 12 hours, 46 minutes...

Not coming fast enough.

 

[Capstone]

Searching your house for a few minutes because a murderous terrorist might be hiding there is not "trampling on your rights." Confiscating your house, business, and holdings then throwing you into a concentration camp for years is "trampling on your rights."

Even in exigent circumstances, the 4th Amendment preserves the need for 'probable cause' for each and every search conducted against the wishes of the property owners.

That aside, do you think there's any chance that some residents may have felt coerced into granting permission to teams of heavily armed men pointing guns in their faces?

Time will tell how well this particular intrusion into sacred territory will hold up in the courts, but of this much you can be sure: all concerned parties will emerge better educated and better prepared for the next go-around.

 

[laughinReaper]

...in washington, senate intelligence committee member richard burr, r-n.c., said after his panel was briefed by federal law enforcement officials that there is "no question" that tamerlan tsarnaev, 26, was "the dominant force" behind the attacks, and that the brothers had apparently been radicalized by material on the internet rather than by contact with militant groups overseas...

Well, that's a relief!

dzhokhar tsarnaev probably practiced radical islam without major terror connections

bfs