(04-20-2013 08:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:45 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:40 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You should be comparing him to Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph rather than OBL.

US citizen/terrorist act/US soil.

Hopefully this murderer will suffer a quick demise like McVeigh.

equating mcveigh with this guy is a mistake. it will lead to the flat inability to deal with foreign terrorists that somehow manage to navigate their way through the citizenship process.

the current trend is clearly to acquire citizenship, and then commit terrorist acts. we have got to have the ability to winnow out those individuals.

Yes, because navigating through the long, tedious citizenship process is critical to being a successful terrorist. I mean, why just hijack a plane and fly it into a large building, killing thousands, when you can spend a decade in the U.S. peacefully to become a citizen, build a few small time bombs with pressure cookers, and kill four whole people?

that's a straw man, and you know it.

the point is that after the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber blew it (and God knows, al quada's "A-team" all seemed to have died on 9/11), terror cells are using our own bureaucracy and our individual freedoms against us.

He hasn't been established as a member of AQ yet.

(04-20-2013 08:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:45 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:40 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You should be comparing him to Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph rather than OBL.

US citizen/terrorist act/US soil.

Hopefully this murderer will suffer a quick demise like McVeigh.

equating mcveigh with this guy is a mistake. it will lead to the flat inability to deal with foreign terrorists that somehow manage to navigate their way through the citizenship process.

the current trend is clearly to acquire citizenship, and then commit terrorist acts. we have got to have the ability to winnow out those individuals.

Yes, because navigating through the long, tedious citizenship process is critical to being a successful terrorist. I mean, why just hijack a plane and fly it into a large building, killing thousands, when you can spend a decade in the U.S. peacefully to become a citizen, build a few small time bombs with pressure cookers, and kill four whole people?

that's a straw man, and you know it.

the point is that after the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber blew it (and God knows, al quada's "A-team" all seemed to have died on 9/11), terror cells are using our own bureaucracy and our individual freedoms against us.

No, it isn't a straw man. Do you really think that al-Qaeda's new grand plan is to send young folks to America, have them hang around and assimilate into the culture for over a decade, and then carry out a small time operations that only kills four people, when they previously killed 3k without obtaining citizenship?

And who needs al-Qaeda when we've got people like you willing to strip us of our "freedoms?"

(04-20-2013 08:50 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:49 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:38 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:00 PM)EagleX Wrote:  that is just untrue. you're just wrong. what happens to a Chechnyan that acquired citizenship in september under fraudulent grounds cant happen to me or you. well, wait. you aren't from chechnya, are you?

and there is over 200 years of precedent that says you are worried about nothing, and you are willing to risk the ability of the republic to defend itself based upon your wrongness.

Again, he acquired citizenship legally. There is nothing "fraudulent" about it. You saying it doesn't make it so. Same with you saying I'm "just wrong" or what I said is "just untrue." You need evidence, just as you need evidence to convict someone one a crime before you can strip them totally of their rights.

And Germany was one of the freest nations in the world in the 1920s. We as a nation have "over 200 years of precedent" because of things like due process. Now you want to get rid of it. We don't have castes here. If it happens to one citizen, it can happen to another.

equating us with nazi germany is just . . . indefensible.

you have conducted yourself during this debate very admirably thus far, but that one is off the charts.

I didn't equate us with Nazi Germany. You have serious reading comprehension issues if you think I did.

The point is that a nation is nothing without safeguards to protect its citizens from tyranny. Here you are, openly trying to take of the most important ones - the one that has been the cornerstone of every free society since the Magna Carta was signed 800 years ago - down in flames.

I reject the notion that he is a legitimate citizen.

Can you tell me the Constitutional basis for determining legitimate vs. illegitimate citizens?

(04-20-2013 08:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:50 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:49 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:38 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Again, he acquired citizenship legally. There is nothing "fraudulent" about it. You saying it doesn't make it so. Same with you saying I'm "just wrong" or what I said is "just untrue." You need evidence, just as you need evidence to convict someone one a crime before you can strip them totally of their rights.

And Germany was one of the freest nations in the world in the 1920s. We as a nation have "over 200 years of precedent" because of things like due process. Now you want to get rid of it. We don't have castes here. If it happens to one citizen, it can happen to another.

equating us with nazi germany is just . . . indefensible.

you have conducted yourself during this debate very admirably thus far, but that one is off the charts.

I didn't equate us with Nazi Germany. You have serious reading comprehension issues if you think I did.

The point is that a nation is nothing without safeguards to protect its citizens from tyranny. Here you are, openly trying to take of the most important ones - the one that has been the cornerstone of every free society since the Magna Carta was signed 800 years ago - down in flames.

I reject the notion that he is a legitimate citizen.

Can you tell me the Constitutional basis for determining legitimate vs. illegitimate citizens?

the constitution is a framework for workable government. seriously, there isn't a clause in there just for him.

but there is a ton of precedent in favor of my argument. I'm not your web tutor, but google is your friend.

(04-20-2013 08:54 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:45 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:40 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Hopefully this murderer will suffer a quick demise like McVeigh.

equating mcveigh with this guy is a mistake. it will lead to the flat inability to deal with foreign terrorists that somehow manage to navigate their way through the citizenship process.

the current trend is clearly to acquire citizenship, and then commit terrorist acts. we have got to have the ability to winnow out those individuals.

Yes, because navigating through the long, tedious citizenship process is critical to being a successful terrorist. I mean, why just hijack a plane and fly it into a large building, killing thousands, when you can spend a decade in the U.S. peacefully to become a citizen, build a few small time bombs with pressure cookers, and kill four whole people?

that's a straw man, and you know it.

the point is that after the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber blew it (and God knows, al quada's "A-team" all seemed to have died on 9/11), terror cells are using our own bureaucracy and our individual freedoms against us.

No, it isn't a straw man. Do you really think that al-Qaeda's new grand plan is to send young folks to America, have them hang around and assimilate into the culture for over a decade, and then carry out a small time operations that only kills four people, when they previously killed 3k without obtaining citizenship?

And who needs al-Qaeda when we've got people like you willing to strip us of our "freedoms?"

yes, I do.

(04-20-2013 11:35 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:23 AM)blah Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:41 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Thought Mass. didn't have the death penalty.

That's easy enough... If he is guilty hand him over to the Chinese so they can try him for the murder of the international student.

I like this idea alot...The Chinese know how to make an example of someone.

Yeah, rendering US Citizens to foreign nations for torture is a great idea. Fsck the Constitution, right?

All I know is if someone in China killed a US citizen I would want them on the first plane here...

Show me where you have a constitutional right not to be extradited for crimes against a foreign national.

(04-20-2013 09:18 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:50 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:49 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  equating us with nazi germany is just . . . indefensible.

you have conducted yourself during this debate very admirably thus far, but that one is off the charts.

I didn't equate us with Nazi Germany. You have serious reading comprehension issues if you think I did.

The point is that a nation is nothing without safeguards to protect its citizens from tyranny. Here you are, openly trying to take of the most important ones - the one that has been the cornerstone of every free society since the Magna Carta was signed 800 years ago - down in flames.

I reject the notion that he is a legitimate citizen.

Can you tell me the Constitutional basis for determining legitimate vs. illegitimate citizens?

the constitution is a framework for workable government. seriously, there isn't a clause in there just for him.

but there is a ton of precedent in favor of my argument. I'm not your web tutor, but google is your friend.

Then how can you possibly argue that what happens to him won't happen to other Americans?

(04-20-2013 09:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:35 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:23 AM)blah Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:41 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Thought Mass. didn't have the death penalty.

That's easy enough... If he is guilty hand him over to the Chinese so they can try him for the murder of the international student.

I like this idea alot...The Chinese know how to make an example of someone.

Yeah, rendering US Citizens to foreign nations for torture is a great idea. Fsck the Constitution, right?

All I know is if someone in China killed a US citizen I would want them on the first plane here...

Show me where you have a constitutional right not to be extradited for crimes against a foreign national.

Well we don't have an extradition treaty with China so it would be illegal.

(04-20-2013 09:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:35 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:23 AM)blah Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:41 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Thought Mass. didn't have the death penalty.

That's easy enough... If he is guilty hand him over to the Chinese so they can try him for the murder of the international student.

I like this idea alot...The Chinese know how to make an example of someone.

Yeah, rendering US Citizens to foreign nations for torture is a great idea. Fsck the Constitution, right?

All I know is if someone in China killed a US citizen I would want them on the first plane here...

Show me where you have a constitutional right not to be extradited for crimes against a foreign national.

It is not going to happen but I see no reason why we couldn't in a separate trial in China.

(04-20-2013 04:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  He's an American citizen accused of committing a criminal act against Americans in America.

He gets his due process or none of us is safe.

For the people who ***** about the president ignoring the Constitution (and, admittedly, I'm one of them) we'd better damned well be ready to honor it.

I did say *IF* he's found guilty.... I also think if you kill a foreign national its not unthinkable, or unconstitutional to hand you over to them, lord knows we think other nations should do it for us.

(04-20-2013 07:09 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:03 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Yeah, I'm really disappointed in many people here that I've seen berate Obama about trampling on certain Constitutional rights (2nd amendment) but on the other hand want us to just ignore this guy's 5th and 6th amendment rights. If you support the Constitution, you have to support all of it, otherwise shut up on the rest of it. And, Smaug's right: ignoring this guy's rights this time around may make you feel good but in 20 years when you're on a plane to Gitmo you might think differently.

The difference is we're talking about the rights of law abiding citizens vs the rights of a guy who kills Americans. Two different animals.

Which section of the Constitution says that? I must've missed it.

That's the whole point of rights. They apply to everyone equally, from the guilty to the innocent. And, legally, this guy is currently innocent.

So felons lose their second amendment rights and thats ok.. But all other enumerated rights must stay totally untouched by committing a crime..

(04-20-2013 09:35 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:09 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:03 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Yeah, I'm really disappointed in many people here that I've seen berate Obama about trampling on certain Constitutional rights (2nd amendment) but on the other hand want us to just ignore this guy's 5th and 6th amendment rights. If you support the Constitution, you have to support all of it, otherwise shut up on the rest of it. And, Smaug's right: ignoring this guy's rights this time around may make you feel good but in 20 years when you're on a plane to Gitmo you might think differently.

The difference is we're talking about the rights of law abiding citizens vs the rights of a guy who kills Americans. Two different animals.

Which section of the Constitution says that? I must've missed it.

That's the whole point of rights. They apply to everyone equally, from the guilty to the innocent. And, legally, this guy is currently innocent.

So felons lose their second amendment rights and thats ok.. But all other enumerated rights must stay totally untouched by committing a crime..

He hasn't been convicted. He is not a convicted felon yet. Don't try to sidetrack this thread.

(04-20-2013 09:36 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:35 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:09 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:03 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Yeah, I'm really disappointed in many people here that I've seen berate Obama about trampling on certain Constitutional rights (2nd amendment) but on the other hand want us to just ignore this guy's 5th and 6th amendment rights. If you support the Constitution, you have to support all of it, otherwise shut up on the rest of it. And, Smaug's right: ignoring this guy's rights this time around may make you feel good but in 20 years when you're on a plane to Gitmo you might think differently.

The difference is we're talking about the rights of law abiding citizens vs the rights of a guy who kills Americans. Two different animals.

Which section of the Constitution says that? I must've missed it.

That's the whole point of rights. They apply to everyone equally, from the guilty to the innocent. And, legally, this guy is currently innocent.

So felons lose their second amendment rights and thats ok.. But all other enumerated rights must stay totally untouched by committing a crime..

He hasn't been convicted. He is not a convicted felon yet. Don't try to sidetrack this thread.

And I am pretty sure most people here who said things like "send him to China" kinda mean after being convicted.

(04-20-2013 09:32 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:35 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:23 AM)blah Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  That's easy enough... If he is guilty hand him over to the Chinese so they can try him for the murder of the international student.

I like this idea alot...The Chinese know how to make an example of someone.

Yeah, rendering US Citizens to foreign nations for torture is a great idea. Fsck the Constitution, right?

All I know is if someone in China killed a US citizen I would want them on the first plane here...

Show me where you have a constitutional right not to be extradited for crimes against a foreign national.

Well we don't have an extradition treaty with China so it would be illegal.

Ummm no... It's not mandatory but that's not the same as illegal.

(04-20-2013 09:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:36 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:35 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:09 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:07 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The difference is we're talking about the rights of law abiding citizens vs the rights of a guy who kills Americans. Two different animals.

Which section of the Constitution says that? I must've missed it.

That's the whole point of rights. They apply to everyone equally, from the guilty to the innocent. And, legally, this guy is currently innocent.

So felons lose their second amendment rights and thats ok.. But all other enumerated rights must stay totally untouched by committing a crime..

He hasn't been convicted. He is not a convicted felon yet. Don't try to sidetrack this thread.

And I am pretty sure most people here who said things like "send him to China" kinda mean after being convicted.

Rendering him to China would be shameful no matter when it happened.

(04-20-2013 09:39 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:32 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:35 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:23 AM)blah Wrote:  I like this idea alot...The Chinese know how to make an example of someone.

Yeah, rendering US Citizens to foreign nations for torture is a great idea. Fsck the Constitution, right?

All I know is if someone in China killed a US citizen I would want them on the first plane here...

Show me where you have a constitutional right not to be extradited for crimes against a foreign national.

Well we don't have an extradition treaty with China so it would be illegal.

Ummm no... It's not mandatory but that's not the same as illegal.

It would be extraordinarily out of order. Granted, it's according to Wikipedia, but apparently the only real way to extradite someone to a country without a treaty is if they killed a US national in the foreign country and that crime is what they were being extradited for.

(04-20-2013 09:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:18 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:50 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:49 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  I didn't equate us with Nazi Germany. You have serious reading comprehension issues if you think I did.

The point is that a nation is nothing without safeguards to protect its citizens from tyranny. Here you are, openly trying to take of the most important ones - the one that has been the cornerstone of every free society since the Magna Carta was signed 800 years ago - down in flames.

I reject the notion that he is a legitimate citizen.

Can you tell me the Constitutional basis for determining legitimate vs. illegitimate citizens?

the constitution is a framework for workable government. seriously, there isn't a clause in there just for him.

but there is a ton of precedent in favor of my argument. I'm not your web tutor, but google is your friend.

Then how can you possibly argue that what happens to him won't happen to other Americans?

we aren't him. he isn't us. like it or not, there is a fundamental difference between those of us that are born in this country, and those that aren't.

it's pretty simple.

(04-20-2013 09:47 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:18 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:50 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I reject the notion that he is a legitimate citizen.

Can you tell me the Constitutional basis for determining legitimate vs. illegitimate citizens?

the constitution is a framework for workable government. seriously, there isn't a clause in there just for him.

but there is a ton of precedent in favor of my argument. I'm not your web tutor, but google is your friend.

Then how can you possibly argue that what happens to him won't happen to other Americans?

we aren't him. he isn't us. like it or not, there is a fundamental difference between those of us that are born in this country, and those that aren't.

it's pretty simple.

So it's racism then? I don't get what you're saying. A citizen is a citizen.

(04-20-2013 09:39 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:32 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:30 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:35 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:23 AM)blah Wrote:  I like this idea alot...The Chinese know how to make an example of someone.

Yeah, rendering US Citizens to foreign nations for torture is a great idea. Fsck the Constitution, right?

All I know is if someone in China killed a US citizen I would want them on the first plane here...

Show me where you have a constitutional right not to be extradited for crimes against a foreign national.

Well we don't have an extradition treaty with China so it would be illegal.

Ummm no... It's not mandatory but that's not the same as illegal.

the china comment was sarcastic. don't get sidetracked.

(04-20-2013 09:48 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:47 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:18 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Can you tell me the Constitutional basis for determining legitimate vs. illegitimate citizens?

the constitution is a framework for workable government. seriously, there isn't a clause in there just for him.

but there is a ton of precedent in favor of my argument. I'm not your web tutor, but google is your friend.

Then how can you possibly argue that what happens to him won't happen to other Americans?

we aren't him. he isn't us. like it or not, there is a fundamental difference between those of us that are born in this country, and those that aren't.

it's pretty simple.

So it's racism then? I don't get what you're saying. A citizen is a citizen.

jeeez. you seem to be a genuinely good guy, but you're all over the map.

a "citizen" of seven months is not the same as a person that was born in this country 40 years ago. it just stands to reason.

(04-20-2013 09:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:48 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:47 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:32 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:18 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the constitution is a framework for workable government. seriously, there isn't a clause in there just for him.

but there is a ton of precedent in favor of my argument. I'm not your web tutor, but google is your friend.

Then how can you possibly argue that what happens to him won't happen to other Americans?

we aren't him. he isn't us. like it or not, there is a fundamental difference between those of us that are born in this country, and those that aren't.

it's pretty simple.

So it's racism then? I don't get what you're saying. A citizen is a citizen.

jeeez. you seem to be a genuinely good guy, but you're all over the map.

a "citizen" of seven months is not the same as a person that was born in this country 40 years ago. it just stands to reason.

No, it doesn't stand to reason. We don't have different classes of citizens. That's the entire point of being an American citizen.