Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 74

Thread: Lindsey Graham: Obama Should Hold Bombing Suspect as ‘Enemy Combatant’

  1. -51
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,158
    vCash:
    7744
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by flynryan15 View Post
    I'm not disregarding it I am not indulging you because it is not the issue at hand. It is your attempt to say I want one but not the other. What I am saying is I do not believe terrorist should be protected by the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, or The Constitution and if by chance the terrorist is a citizen once linked to a terrorist group his or her citizenship should be stripped and he should be tried as a terrorist.
    You do want one and not the other and you are not a friend of the constituion.......only when it fits your beliefs.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  2. -52
    flynryan15's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2009
    Posts:
    13,147
    vCash:
    3622
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 912013 Dolphins LogoMike Wallace 11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    So a so called "public safety act" overrides the constitution??? You cool with that??? You trust this government with NEVER abusing this clear attack on liberties???
    No one is saying the public safety act is overriding the constitution, it is a option the US Attorney exercised at this time. The government hasn't said anything else for all we know when he is out of surgery they could read him his Miranda Rights. What's the rush? Statements made under extreme physical distress are not admissible anyway.

    I don't see how this is a attack on his civil liberties he went to war with the United States and the only thing that has happened is he is receiving first class medical care for the wounds he received for his actions.

    How about the 4 dead people did they have any rights?

    ---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    You do want one and not the other and you are not a friend of the constituion.......only when it fits your beliefs.
    Keep telling yourself that! Maybe you should start up a defense fund for the jihadist?
    The above post is not subject to penalty under the TOS I declare the Hayden Fox defense. " It is impossible for the staff to know my context therefore I cannot be penalized"

    Quote Quote  

  3. -53
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,158
    vCash:
    7744
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by flynryan15 View Post
    No one is saying the public safety act is overriding the constitution, it is a option the US Attorney exercised at this time. The government hasn't said anything else for all we know when he is out of surgery they could read him his Miranda Rights. What's the rush? Statements made under extreme physical distress are not admissible anyway.

    I don't see how this is a attack on his civil liberties he went to war with the United States and the only thing that has happened is he is receiving first class medical care for the wounds he received for his actions.

    How about the 4 dead people did they have any rights?

    ---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------



    Keep telling yourself that!aune you should start up a defense fund for the jihadist?
    Sorry to busy being consistant with defending the constitution against all those that want to take it away.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -54
    flynryan15's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2009
    Posts:
    13,147
    vCash:
    3622
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 912013 Dolphins LogoMike Wallace 11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Sorry to busy being consistant with defending the constitution against all those that want to take it away.
    But conveniently ignoring laws that have been put in place to strip people of their citizenship if the government proves they joined a enemy force at war with the United States!
    Quote Quote  

  5. -55
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,158
    vCash:
    7744
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by flynryan15 View Post
    But conveniently ignoring laws that have been put in place to strip people of their citizenship if the government proves they joined a enemy force at war with the United States!
    Holy **** they amended the constitution for that???

    When did they prove that??? And how do these laws override the 5th amendment without the required amendment process?? But I'm sure you would cry foul the moment Obama and the Dems override the 2nd with a "child safety act".
    Quote Quote  

  6. -56
    flynryan15's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2009
    Posts:
    13,147
    vCash:
    3622
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 912013 Dolphins LogoMike Wallace 11
    entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

    As I posted before acts that can cause you to be stripped of your citizenship, but you can keep ignoring that. It's ok keep trying to spin this. You don't get to claim child safety act because you have proven time and time again you don't care about little Martins rights you only care about the terrorist rights! Oh let me guess since you don't like the 2nd Amendment those kids have rights, but since you love terrorist Martin has no rights?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -57
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,158
    vCash:
    7744
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by flynryan15 View Post
    entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

    As I posted before acts that can cause you to be stripped of your citizenship, but you can keep ignoring that. It's ok keep trying to spin this. You don't get to claim child safety act because you have proven time and time again you don't care about little Martins rights you only care about the terrorist rights! Oh let me guess since you don't like the 2nd Amendment those kids have rights, but since you love terrorist Martin has no rights?
    A little reminder.....


    John Adams and the Boston Massacre


    It was the most controversial case of its day — the defense of the British soldiers accused of carrying out what would come to be known as the Boston Massacre. Amid the outrage and fury that followed the shooting, which resulted in the deaths of five colonists, one young Boston attorney courageously took the case to ensure that justice was served.

    The presence of British troops, who had occupied Boston since 1768 in an effort to put down resistance to the Crown’s policy of taxation without representation, had been a source of mounting tension in the colonial city. Things came to a head on the snowy evening of March 5, 1770 when a small group of Bostonians gathered to taunt a British sentry. As the crowd grew into a mob of hundreds, several soldiers under the command of Captain Thomas Preston came to the assistance of the besieged sentry. Rocks and snowballs were thrown and soon the soldiers opened fire. When it was over, three civilians lay dead at the scene with two more mortally wounded.

    With a public enraged by what they saw as an act of brutality by their British occupiers, Captain Preston and his men were indicted for murder by the colonial government. Because of the virulent anti-British sentiment in Boston, no lawyers in the city would agree to defend the soldiers, believing it would be the end of their legal careers. But John Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them. Adams later wrote that he risked infamy and even death, and incurred much popular suspicion and prejudice, for the sense of duty he felt to offer the British soldiers an adequate defense.

    Of his decision to represent the British soldiers, Adams wrote in his diary:

    "The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

    Captain Preston and six of his men were acquitted while two others who were convicted of manslaughter were sentenced to be branded with an “m” on their thumbs.

    http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...oston-massacre
    Quote Quote  

  8. -58
    flynryan15's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2009
    Posts:
    13,147
    vCash:
    3622
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 912013 Dolphins LogoMike Wallace 11
    Oh this just keeps getting better just curious what part of the Constitution was used for that defense?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -59
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,158
    vCash:
    7744
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by flynryan15 View Post
    Oh this just keeps getting better just curious what part of the Constitution was used for that defense?
    The one you wish to take away.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -60
    flynryan15's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2009
    Posts:
    13,147
    vCash:
    3622
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 912013 Dolphins LogoMike Wallace 11
    So a document written in 1787 ratified in 1788 was used as a defense in a trail in 1770?
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. No Miranda rights for Boston Bombing suspect
    By DisturbedShifty in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-25-2013, 02:37 PM
  2. Lindsey Graham Quote on Demographics
    By trojanma in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 03:45 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 12:01 AM
  4. Obama admin. to end use of term 'enemy combatant'
    By Dolphan7 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 01:10 AM
  5. Pentagon formally charges 15 year old 'enemy combatant'
    By spydertl79 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 08:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •