Massacre in Kenya

[Drummond]

Due to some upsets with your country a couple hundred + years ago, 'treason' was quite important in being defined by the Founders:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art3.asp

From Article 3:

-- H'm.

I mean no disrespect to your Founders - generally speaking, quite the opposite, in fact.

It worries me, though, that a form of straitjacketing is in evidence. The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.

If it were possible - and I'm getting the message that it isn't - for America to move with the times so that there was enough latitude to evolve thinking and legislative need to fully meet and counter modern scenarios, this is surely the way America should go. If it really cannot budge enough to manage that process of evolution, I think it must follow that your responses to future threats will become increasingly inadequate.

In this instance -- terrorists clearly have an advantage to gain by recruiting Americans to their groups.

[Arbo]

The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.

The genius of the founders was they knew they couldn't foresee everything, so they build a system with a process to change the system. However our elected officials don't use it, they avoid it. But in terms of terrorism, I think they quite well know what perils we could face, they were witness to atrocities in their time, and do not forget even Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran in an attempt to figure out Islam and what was behind the violence that lead to the Barbary War...

In this instance -- terrorists clearly have an advantage to gain by recruiting Americans to their groups.

What 'advantage' does a terrorist that is a citizen have over a terrorist that is not?

[Drummond]

The genius of the founders was they knew they couldn't foresee everything, so they build a system with a process to change the system. However our elected officials don't use it, they avoid it. But in terms of terrorism, I think they quite well know what perils we could face, they were witness to atrocities in their time, and do not forget even Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran in an attempt to figure out Islam and what was behind the violence that lead to the Barbary War...



What 'advantage' does a terrorist that is a citizen have over a terrorist that is not?

Taking all of this into account, I find myself going back to my original thinking. If, indeed, present-day perils WERE forseen to a sufficient extent, then it makes no sense for a means not to be easily applied for a home-grown terrorist (one carrying US citizenship) to be summarily stripped of that, and not to instead enjoy any advantages which that citizenship would confer.

AN ENEMY IS AN ENEMY. A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR. Messing about with any of that simple truth invites pointless self-harm - of the sort that the Left, no doubt citing some sort of 'lofty standard', would love to argue for so as to make a terrorist's life even easier.

Answering your final point, one point is surely undeniable ? Say enforcement agencies (whoever they may be) take action against a US citizen which fails to take that citizenship into account, there'd be bleeding-heart types arguing for the sanctity OF that citizenship status, and requiring better treatment of the 'citizen'. Never mind that the 'citizen' is as much of an enemy as any terrorist from anywhere else. That wouldn't matter.

Here's an example of where US citizenship, and JUST that, made a difference ... in my view, scandalously so ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...r_on_Terrorism

In November 2001, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Konduz, Afghanistan, amongst hundreds of surrendering Taliban fighters and was transferred into U.S. custody. The U.S. government alleged that Hamdi was there fighting for the Taliban, while Hamdi, through his father, has claimed that he was merely there as a relief worker and was mistakenly captured. Hamdi was transferred into CIA custody and transferred to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but when it was discovered that he was a U.S. citizen, he was transferred to naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia and then he was transferred brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Bush Administration identified him as an unlawful combatant and denied him access to an attorney or the court system, despite his Fifth Amendment right to due process. In 2002 Hamdi's father filed a habeas corpus petition, the Judge ruled in Hamdi's favor and required he be allowed a public defender; however, on appeal the decision was reversed. In 2004, in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the U.S. Supreme court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition and ruled detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

I'd be willing to guess that the judge involved (as so many are ?) was a bleeding heart Leftie type. Agreed ?

[Kathianne]

Taking all of this into account, I find myself going back to my original thinking. If, indeed, present-day perils WERE forseen to a sufficient extent, then it makes no sense for a means not to be easily applied for a home-grown terrorist (one carrying US citizenship) to be summarily stripped of that, and not to instead enjoy any advantages which that citizenship would confer. AN ENEMY IS AN ENEMY. A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR. Messing about with any of that simple truth invites pointless self-harm - of the sort that the Left, no doubt citing some sort of 'lofty standard', would love to argue for so as to make a terrorist's life even easier.

Not agreeing with the government doesn't make one a traitor. That word has always been thrown about too much, in this country though almost impossible to prove in court. Have to go with the working definition in place, not what it means in other places.

[Arbo]

Taking all of this into account,

So you don't want to answer the question? I thought it was simple, what 'advantage' does a citizen that is a terrorist have that a non citizen terrorist doesn't have?

[Drummond]

So you don't want to answer the question? I thought it was simple, what 'advantage' does a citizen that is a terrorist have that a non citizen terrorist doesn't have?

Read my post in its entirety, rather than just cherrypicking what you prefer to read. You will find, if you pay enough attention, that I cite a case of that advantage materialising.

[Drummond]

Not agreeing with the government doesn't make one a traitor. That word has always been thrown about too much, in this country though almost impossible to prove in court. Have to go with the working definition in place, not what it means in other places.

I've been talking about terrorists who become enemies of the US, whilst still keeping US citizenship.

A terrorist does rather more than just 'disagree with a Government'.

[Arbo]

Read my post in its entirety, rather than just cherrypicking what you prefer to read. You will find, if you pay enough attention, that I cite a case of that advantage materialising.

I read it in it's entirety, but that was before you went back and added to it.

I see no 'advantage' that a terrorist that is a citizen has based on what you added to your post.

[Kathianne]

I've been talking about terrorists who become enemies of the US, whilst still keeping US citizenship. A terrorist does rather more than just 'disagree with a Government'.

This is right up there with, 'impeach the president!' There's a system, if anyone wants to push for an amendment to change Art. 3, Sec 3 let me know. Impeachment is far easier, since all it takes is for the House to write a bill of charges. Now getting them there, not to mention the problems in a Senate trial...

[Drummond]

I read it in it's entirety, but that was before you went back and added to it.

I see no 'advantage' that a terrorist that is a citizen has based on what you added to your post.

Fair enough, then. I note that you read my piece before I added to it.

Even so, you've now seen the addition. Here's a partial quote from it - which shows, clearly, that advantage was judged to exist and be applicable. Observe ..

In 2004, in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the U.S. Supreme court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition and ruled detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

See that ? A US citizen who's also a terrorist, captured as a terrorist and detained as a terrorist would be .. BECAUSE of his US citizenship, can claim preferential 'rights' to combat terms of detention that would otherwise apply.

[Arbo]

See that ? A US citizen who's also a terrorist, captured as a terrorist and detained as a terrorist would be .. BECAUSE of his US citizenship, can claim preferential 'rights' to combat terms of detention that would otherwise apply.

They can waste whatever time they want, if they are clearly a terrorist that committed an act of terrorism, none of that matters, lawyer or not, eventually they will go to trial and be found guilty.

[logroller]

The genius of the founders was they knew they couldn't foresee everything, so they build a system with a process to change the system. However our elected officials don't use it, they avoid it. But in terms of terrorism, I think they quite well know what perils we could face, they were witness to atrocities in their time, and do not forget even Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran in an attempt to figure out Islam and what was behind the violence that lead to the Barbary War...



What 'advantage' does a terrorist that is a citizen have over a terrorist that is not?

Per amendment 4, the 'people' have a right to warranted seizure. I'm not so sure on noncitizens, are they members of 'the people'? I'd say not, but Id have to check case law to be sure; it may still apply to resident aliens, but I'm quite sure it doesnt apply to nonresident aliens. Of course the alien's home country may have some deal with our government but I'm thinking most countries have no interest in persons described as terrorists/unlawful combatants.

If they were charged with an offense amendment 5 would afford them rightful protections but mere detainment, even indefinite detainment would not qualify them to a trial near as I can make sense of, legally speaking.

[fj1200]

This, FJ, is just one big cop out. Clearly you're determined to slink away from any meeting of my challenge. I asked you to prove that a terrorist is human. And this is your reply.

And you are 'denying the undeniable'. What's undeniable is that a terrorist, in order to BE such, cannot have human qualities that would, if present, deny the capacity to act as one. You know it. I know it. Any rational thinker must know it.

But you'll deny the obvious truth all the same.

Cop out? No, truth. Claiming that copping out while at the same time not owning up to your own inability to prove your point is amusing indeed. Nevertheless you just stepped in it by attempting to redefine what you seek to prove. "Human qualities" is a highly subject measure that is completely different than whether a human being is definably a human being.

Now, please continue on with your deflection of stating that I can't meet your challenge when I have repeatedly. So meet my challenge you've been ducking for quite some time; at what level of mental retardation is an individual subhuman?

I agree that no terrorist should either have, or ever be considered to have 'earned', such a level of rights. Nonetheless, Lefties don't care. They'll single-mindedly pursue their quest for the 'human rights' of these butchers not caring, oblivious even, as to what impact this has on victims of terrorism, past, present, future. That's the point. To a Leftie, terrorist so-called 'human rights' supersede ANY AND ALL of that.

Blah, blah, blah, lefties.

Impressed, eh ?

Impressed that you recognize the deficiencies of your banana position? Yes.

You win just because you say so ??

You cannot point to anything I say and prove it untrue. So how on earth can you still claim to have the BETTER argument, when you cannot come up with any countering argument possessing any substance ?? Just saying you have 'the better argument' and leaving it at that proves and achieves nothing at all.

Not because I say so but because I have the better argument... oops, did it again. Besides I already know my argument is better because instead of challenging my position you make the same argument over and over and you make it about me and my "leftieness."

Besides, the heart of your argument is untrue, every human being is in fact a human being even those that you are upset about sharing DNA with. :shrug: And then your logic falls from there; case in point your "leftie" diatribe above.

[fj1200]

It is really irrelevant. If the 'terrorist' is an American citizen, they have a right to a trial. Just as a 'mass murderer' or 'pedophile' or anyone else. We may not like it, but it's how the system is set up.

And then there's the Geneva Convention for non-citizens.

[fj1200]

So why can't they be denied - stripped of - US citizenship ?

Surely, as enemies of the US, they are traitors to it, and 'earn' none of the benefits of citizenship ... indeed, to allow any of them to keep that citizenship is no less than an insult to the country providing it ?

I know Arbo mentioned the rule of law issue but it's another error of your logic. Citizens don't 'earn' benefits of citizenship, they are granted them by nature of being citizens in the first place. But that you seek an arbitrary 'stripping' of the benefits of citizenship without any sort of due process is not surprising to me.

Your last sentence really sums it up, too. Better thought out than my own answer would've been.

Except that his last sentence is a complete red herring.

Just like Clinton treated OBL and company after the first WTC bombing in 1993.
Treat our enemies like they have the same rights as citizens????
Tie up the court system, and demand our soldiers become witnesses while bringing all the evidence demanded by the Defense...back from the Battle site???
Really?

Almost no one, anyone?, is suggesting that every enemy combatant be granted the same rights as citizens and that they be tried in the court system of the US.