Comments on: 9/11 Trial Won’t Happen In New York

By: sid

sid — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:51:30 +0000

Technically, ONNA, I’m right and you’re wrong. What I said was that non-citizens do not enjoy the same protection of rights as do citizens. That is factually correct. Can legal or illegal aliens vote? Not legally. Can they purchase firearms? Not in most cases.

However, I’ll concede that in this particular application, I was wrong. I guess I never looked that deeply into what rights are recognized for non-citizens who are facing criminal charges. Looks like they get the same recognition of rights as citizens.

And, for the record, I wasn’t advocating they should or should not get the recognition. I was merely pointing out that I thought (incorrectly) that they did not automatically get the same protections as citizens.

In the case of terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, I don’t have a problem with the government testing the waters of the judicial process to see how they may best handle them. I’m almost an absolutist when it comes to defending the protections enshrined in the Constitution, but not quite.

By: dirtbogger

dirtbogger — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:39:47 +0000

People should try to understand why we were actually liked in the middle east pre WW2. Unless we are willing do a 180 on our forgin policy other countries will continue to despise us more and more. The elete of society have been through out history for conquest and dragged the comman people into fighting their wars for them, sort of like cock fighting.

By: Liberty For Me

Liberty For Me — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:39:21 +0000

OK…Here is the point.If someone commits a crime then you need to try them.We have not declared war so we are not at war so there is no power of military tribunal…So what are the options you are giving??You either try them or set them free…or are you saying we can hold people without charge,indefinitly for any reason if they are not a citizen??Does that sound lke a country based on Liberty??? Where would you get this from?
I guess if you consider the unconstitutional “patriot” act,American citizens can have this fate…

But I was talking constituionally,that was my whole point.
I know there are lots of posters here who are ready to throw our whole country and laws away,but I am not.

By: OhNoNotAgain

OhNoNotAgain — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:45:50 +0000

ABove was written —
“Courts have consistently held that the rights recognized in the Constitution apply to U.S. citizens, not everyone in the world.”

I don’t think a case has ever come before a court that rights apply to anyone anywhere.
But the courts have ruled in the past four years on detainees held in U.S. Custody who are not citizens. They have access to our courts.
They have ruled on those held at Gitmo. They have access to our courts.
Habeas corpus is a guaranteed, constitutional right, and it applies whereever the United States can reach its arm. THAT’s what the courts have ruled.
You believe those people SHOULDN’T have access to our courts? Fine. That’s your opinion. That’s something you can work on. Change the law.
But your factual assertion is just plain wrong.

By: sid

sid — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:24:28 +0000

I guess I was confused as to what you were saying, LFM. It appeared to me you were trying to make the argument that, if a non-citizen commits a crime on American soil, he should be afforded the same rights as a citizen. What I’m saying is that courts have often held that non-citizens do not have the same rights as citizens. So while you may argue for rights extended to all who are on our soil, there are plenty of court rulings that will disagree with you. I’m not arguing whether you are right in your belief, just that courts have disagreed, and that’s where the rubber meets the road.

By: Liberty For Me

Liberty For Me — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:58:11 +0000

Rufus….I am sorry,but I have to agree.That does not mean you give up the fight to keep us on course.As long as there is a Republic this will be an ongoing fight

By: Liberty For Me

Liberty For Me — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:55:12 +0000

Bobby…..That has nothing to do with it.Try understanding something before you comment.If you have any kind of law education we are all in trouble.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:24:37 +0000

“They are not American citizens (like Tim McVeigh), and as such, they have no right whatsoever to the constitutional privileges of our judicial system…”

Take a Constitutional Law class.

By: Rufus Pinochle

Rufus Pinochle — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:16:32 +0000

Liberty, I sympathize with your regard for the Constitution and your desire that it be revered. I share that view. Unfortunately, the process of circumventing the Framers’ intentions began about 5 minutes after the ink was dry. You should check out “A Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” if you haven’t already. There is a long list of Presidents — from Washington to Lincoln and beyond — who did pick and choose, and the SCOTUS has either supported them gladly (Washington) or been intimidated (Lincoln).

By: Liberty For Me

Liberty For Me — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:18:49 +0000

Countryboy…Yes it is a Libertarian idea to abide by the Constitution.I would hope it would be the idea of every person who claims to care about this country.Once you throw out our laws and become a lynch mob we are no better than any third world nation.
We have just had a president who pissed on the Constitution and now we have another….Anyone who supports those actions has no right to bitch about anything else they do or to bring up how unconstitutional the congress is….You are either in favor of our governing laws or you are against them.You cant pick and choose