(04-20-2013 09:26 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

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

(04-20-2013 09:04 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:59 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Huh? You said he "obviously lied" on his citizenship forms. I asked if you had seen those forms. I'm just about done debating with you, you seem to have some kind of mental illness.

try to follow me. I know its difficult for you.

a guy that took the oath of citizenship on 9/11/2012 was clearly plotting to blow something up on 4/15/2103. in the same moment that he took the oath of citizenship, he was plotting to kill americans.

do you think that a bureaucratic exercise cleanses you of all former evil, or current evil intent?

You keep saying "clearly" and "obviously" but you have not offered a single piece of evidence. When challenged on it you just say something about the victims of the bombing. That has no bearing on what he said in his citizenship interviews or what he put on his applications.

I don't have to. the argument isn't his guilt or innocence as a citizen. the argument is over whether he is a citizen or not.

I say he is not. logic and reasoning says that he is not.

we need not turn this miserable little bastard into a civil rights conversation if he wasn't a citizen in the first place.

If that's the argument, then you've clearly lost. There are only two options: citizen or non-citizen. He is undeniably a citizen, having gone through the appropriate legal process to become one. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

incorrect.

you don't understand the nuances of immigration law and/or the citizenship process.

(04-20-2013 09:28 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:26 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

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

(04-20-2013 09:04 PM)EagleX Wrote:  try to follow me. I know its difficult for you.

a guy that took the oath of citizenship on 9/11/2012 was clearly plotting to blow something up on 4/15/2103. in the same moment that he took the oath of citizenship, he was plotting to kill americans.

do you think that a bureaucratic exercise cleanses you of all former evil, or current evil intent?

You keep saying "clearly" and "obviously" but you have not offered a single piece of evidence. When challenged on it you just say something about the victims of the bombing. That has no bearing on what he said in his citizenship interviews or what he put on his applications.

I don't have to. the argument isn't his guilt or innocence as a citizen. the argument is over whether he is a citizen or not.

I say he is not. logic and reasoning says that he is not.

we need not turn this miserable little bastard into a civil rights conversation if he wasn't a citizen in the first place.

If that's the argument, then you've clearly lost. There are only two options: citizen or non-citizen. He is undeniably a citizen, having gone through the appropriate legal process to become one. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

He is clearly a US Citizen...and that is GD shame. I hope this little SOB dies a horrible death asap.

he is arguably a US citizen. and that's the point.

(04-20-2013 09:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:26 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

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

(04-20-2013 09:04 PM)EagleX Wrote:  try to follow me. I know its difficult for you.

a guy that took the oath of citizenship on 9/11/2012 was clearly plotting to blow something up on 4/15/2103. in the same moment that he took the oath of citizenship, he was plotting to kill americans.

do you think that a bureaucratic exercise cleanses you of all former evil, or current evil intent?

You keep saying "clearly" and "obviously" but you have not offered a single piece of evidence. When challenged on it you just say something about the victims of the bombing. That has no bearing on what he said in his citizenship interviews or what he put on his applications.

I don't have to. the argument isn't his guilt or innocence as a citizen. the argument is over whether he is a citizen or not.

I say he is not. logic and reasoning says that he is not.

we need not turn this miserable little bastard into a civil rights conversation if he wasn't a citizen in the first place.

If that's the argument, then you've clearly lost. There are only two options: citizen or non-citizen. He is undeniably a citizen, having gone through the appropriate legal process to become one. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

incorrect.

you don't understand the nuances of immigration law and/or the citizenship process.

You're an immigration lawyer?

And, even if you're right and what he's done is grounds to revoke his citizenship, it isn't automatic or at the whim of some anonymous idiot on the internet, it has to be adjudicated in a court of law. Until that point, he's a citizen and due his rights as such.

(04-20-2013 09:31 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:26 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  You keep saying "clearly" and "obviously" but you have not offered a single piece of evidence. When challenged on it you just say something about the victims of the bombing. That has no bearing on what he said in his citizenship interviews or what he put on his applications.

I don't have to. the argument isn't his guilt or innocence as a citizen. the argument is over whether he is a citizen or not.

I say he is not. logic and reasoning says that he is not.

we need not turn this miserable little bastard into a civil rights conversation if he wasn't a citizen in the first place.

If that's the argument, then you've clearly lost. There are only two options: citizen or non-citizen. He is undeniably a citizen, having gone through the appropriate legal process to become one. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

incorrect.

you don't understand the nuances of immigration law and/or the citizenship process.

You're an immigration lawyer?

And, even if you're right and what he's done is grounds to revoke his citizenship, it isn't automatic or at the whim of some anonymous idiot on the internet, it has to be adjudicated in a court of law. Until that point, he's a citizen and due his rights as such.

I understand the english language. and it isn't a matter to be decided by the courts; it is a strictly administrative function. that actually makes it worse, though.

so, yeah, it turns out to be the decision of a single "idiot", whether that idiot is on the internet or not.

(04-20-2013 09:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:26 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

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

(04-20-2013 09:04 PM)EagleX Wrote:  try to follow me. I know its difficult for you.

a guy that took the oath of citizenship on 9/11/2012 was clearly plotting to blow something up on 4/15/2103. in the same moment that he took the oath of citizenship, he was plotting to kill americans.

do you think that a bureaucratic exercise cleanses you of all former evil, or current evil intent?

You keep saying "clearly" and "obviously" but you have not offered a single piece of evidence. When challenged on it you just say something about the victims of the bombing. That has no bearing on what he said in his citizenship interviews or what he put on his applications.

I don't have to. the argument isn't his guilt or innocence as a citizen. the argument is over whether he is a citizen or not.

I say he is not. logic and reasoning says that he is not.

we need not turn this miserable little bastard into a civil rights conversation if he wasn't a citizen in the first place.

If that's the argument, then you've clearly lost. There are only two options: citizen or non-citizen. He is undeniably a citizen, having gone through the appropriate legal process to become one. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

incorrect.

you don't understand the nuances of immigration law and/or the citizenship process.

There are no "nuances" after receiving full citizenship. It isn't conditional. The process of revocation is the same as it would be for someone who was born here. There has to be a suit filed first, and the person whose citizenship is in question has to be notified with an affidavit of good cause. After that, the person in question has 60 days to respond. The evidence brought against a person has to be "unequivocal" and prove without a doubt that a person's citizenship should be revoked. Until that process is complete, a person is entitled to all the benefits and legal rights of a U.S. citizenship.

(04-20-2013 09:41 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:31 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:26 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I don't have to. the argument isn't his guilt or innocence as a citizen. the argument is over whether he is a citizen or not.

I say he is not. logic and reasoning says that he is not.

we need not turn this miserable little bastard into a civil rights conversation if he wasn't a citizen in the first place.

If that's the argument, then you've clearly lost. There are only two options: citizen or non-citizen. He is undeniably a citizen, having gone through the appropriate legal process to become one. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

incorrect.

you don't understand the nuances of immigration law and/or the citizenship process.

You're an immigration lawyer?

And, even if you're right and what he's done is grounds to revoke his citizenship, it isn't automatic or at the whim of some anonymous idiot on the internet, it has to be adjudicated in a court of law. Until that point, he's a citizen and due his rights as such.

I understand the english language. and it isn't a matter to be decided by the courts; it is a strictly administrative function. that actually makes it worse, though.

so, yeah, it turns out to be the decision of a single "idiot", whether that idiot is on the internet or not.

Actually it is decided by the courts, it said so in the very link you posted at the beginning of this thread.

(04-20-2013 09:43 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:41 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:31 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:26 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  If that's the argument, then you've clearly lost. There are only two options: citizen or non-citizen. He is undeniably a citizen, having gone through the appropriate legal process to become one. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

incorrect.

you don't understand the nuances of immigration law and/or the citizenship process.

You're an immigration lawyer?

And, even if you're right and what he's done is grounds to revoke his citizenship, it isn't automatic or at the whim of some anonymous idiot on the internet, it has to be adjudicated in a court of law. Until that point, he's a citizen and due his rights as such.

I understand the english language. and it isn't a matter to be decided by the courts; it is a strictly administrative function. that actually makes it worse, though.

so, yeah, it turns out to be the decision of a single "idiot", whether that idiot is on the internet or not.

Actually it is decided by the courts, it said so in the very link you posted at the beginning of this thread.

"court" and "idiot" are pretty much interchangeable in my book, but I give you that one.

(04-19-2013 04:12 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  What would the alternative be though?

People go about their business and when some tries something again they kill them on the spot. It's been that way for centuries.

(04-20-2013 08:41 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do we need to understand these ********? They killed innoicecnt civilians going about their daily lives, killed a cop in the line of duty and wounded hundreds more, and you ask if we know his motives?

How about who gives a flying **** about his motives or his "firey internal rage fueled by the oppression of his people" (even though he's an American citizen) or any other crack pot excuse that some NYU or Columbia lawya is going to scheme up.

How do we know his motives... Holy ****, who cares?

Yeah! Who gives a ******* **** about the ******* Constitution, motherfuckers?

What are you even talking, or screaming, about? Are you drunk? Who said anything about the Constitution?

You asked how I/we know his motives. I said who cares?

Are we interested so we can explain this away? So that we, shucks, can try to do better by him and his the next time around?

Sure get to the bottom of the entire criminal enterprise, but whatever his "motives", ie. excuse, may be should be about last in line about what we care about. Right down there with what he had for dinner when he happily returned to his College dorm after murdering 3 people.

U.S. citizens are entitled to certain rights, like due process. My questions about his motives was someone who wanted to strip him of his rights based on his motives ("When you attack Americans simply because they're Americans then I think you should automatically lose your membership to this country"). Try to keep up.

K. got it, I think. only you responded to MY post completely and without question unrelated to anything related to anything I said--

Quote:

Quote:Yeah! Who gives a ******* **** about the ******* Constitution, motherfuckers?.

Correct? Why get so hysterical? It was a conversation. So back to that, why on earth do we care about their "motives"?

thanks. I'll hang up and take the answer off the air...

I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution that gives you the right to air your grievances before a criminal court. They committed crimes against other citizens, and unless those specific citizens did something that they can argue in court, then their grievances are immaterial. You can't blow up little Bobby because you think the government is oppressive. If you want to sue the government for being oppressive, then do so.

Let him talk before they throw him in prison forever. Understand Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.

(04-22-2013 05:34 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Let him talk before they throw him in prison forever. Understand Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.

Could he be held for an act of treason if this was considered to be terrorism?

(04-21-2013 02:00 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:41 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:55 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do we need to understand these ********? They killed innoicecnt civilians going about their daily lives, killed a cop in the line of duty and wounded hundreds more, and you ask if we know his motives?

How about who gives a flying **** about his motives or his "firey internal rage fueled by the oppression of his people" (even though he's an American citizen) or any other crack pot excuse that some NYU or Columbia lawya is going to scheme up.

How do we know his motives... Holy ****, who cares?

Yeah! Who gives a ******* **** about the ******* Constitution, motherfuckers?

What are you even talking, or screaming, about? Are you drunk? Who said anything about the Constitution?

You asked how I/we know his motives. I said who cares?

Are we interested so we can explain this away? So that we, shucks, can try to do better by him and his the next time around?

Sure get to the bottom of the entire criminal enterprise, but whatever his "motives", ie. excuse, may be should be about last in line about what we care about. Right down there with what he had for dinner when he happily returned to his College dorm after murdering 3 people.

U.S. citizens are entitled to certain rights, like due process. My questions about his motives was someone who wanted to strip him of his rights based on his motives ("When you attack Americans simply because they're Americans then I think you should automatically lose your membership to this country"). Try to keep up.

K. got it, I think. only you responded to MY post completely and without question unrelated to anything related to anything I said--

Quote:

Quote:Yeah! Who gives a ******* **** about the ******* Constitution, motherfuckers?.

Correct? Why get so hysterical? It was a conversation. So back to that, why on earth do we care about their "motives"?

thanks. I'll hang up and take the answer off the air...

I was lampooning your use of ****'s. I thought that was obvious.

Isn't understanding the motive(s) important in classifying the crime (terrorism vs. regular crime), as well as determining how to best prevent these types of crimes from happening in the future? People are calling for treating the crime as a terrorist act. The DOJ definition of terrorism directly factors in the motive. Thus, determining a motive is critical for proceeding with any prosecution as a terrorist.

Quote:Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/

(04-22-2013 05:34 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Let him talk before they throw him in prison forever. Understand Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.

Fed does.

Murder is a state charge. Terrorism is federal.