Who is a Hypocrite

[True Grit Farms]

So when I visit Iran or North Korea all I have to do is point that out and I'm good to go?

TT, you get killed there if your an American.

Not true Dennis Rodman goes

He's from a different universe, maybe you should go and report back to us.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Not true Dennis Rodman goes

And then there was that documentary where that guy got to interview Kim Jong Un for his fancy pants talk show. I think it's called The Interview or something like that.

 

[slick4591]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

Apparently not. Look at all the illegals being able to sue and have their day in court if they get arrested. By denying them those rights it wouldn't put enough government dollars in the pockets of lawyers.

 

[callmefence]

I'm more concerned about why he lived through the gunfight than if they read him his rights.

 

[slick4591]

I'm more concerned about why he lived through the gunfight than if they read him his rights.

Guess they wanted him for intelligence information or they need more range time. Dunno.

 

[Clodhopper]

Back on the Constitution, if he's a citizen, then he should be afforded all of the rights that the document spells out. Like it or not, it's what our government was founded on. Our current problem is sticking to that document when drafting laws, and don't even get me started on "executive order".

 

[JMJ Farms]

I'm more concerned about why he lived through the gunfight than if they read him his rights.

Ain't that the truth. Somehow, we have almost weekly deadly police shootings of citizens, right or wrong, that end up in the headlines, but when we have a criminal that really needs to done away with they always seem to survive :?:

 

[callmefence]

I'm more concerned about why he lived through the gunfight than if they read him his rights.

Guess they wanted him for intelligence information o.

Maybe that's it. Hopefully their waterboarding him with pigs blood. And reading him his rights...

 

[greybeard]

Don't rights granted under the Constitution of the United States apply only to the citizens of the United States?

1. The constitution grants very few rights--most are considered natural and unalienable rights--all the constitution does (in most instances) is prevent the govt from abridging those natural rights. The constitution simply 'guarantees' rights that already exist.

2. To answer your question tho--No. Stated better than I can:
The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between
the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily
denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective
office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however,
are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees
extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials,
including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance
of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply
to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections
of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's
protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens." For more
than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection
Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within
the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ...
nationality." The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due
Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States,
including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent."When noncitizens, no matter what
their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the
rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction
based on their nationality.

As James Madison himself argued,
those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to
be entitled to its protections:
It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution,
as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually
conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are
not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution;
yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one
hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to
their protection and advantage.

 

[JMJ Farms]

that as they owe, on one
hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to
their protection and advantage.

So does this mean that since the criminal in question "owed" temporary obedience, but yet was not obedient, that he is no longer entitled to protection and advantage in return?

 

[greybeard]

Not a chance, any more than any citizen criminal would lose those guarantees. "Owed' works both ways, & whether one individual holds up his end of the 'bargain' or not--the law is still there, as is the constitutional guarantees to equal protection under those laws.

The only time that I know that some few constitutional guarantees are forfeited, is upon conviction, and even those few are appealable.

It seems, a lot of folks forgot what was taught in 7th-8th grade Civics classes.....

 

[JMJ Farms]

I'm not saying you're right or wrong GB.

But to me that statement implies "follow the rules and IN RETURN you will have the protection of the rules"

Kinda like if I owe you $50 for a roll of hay. I pay you the $50. IN RETURN I take the roll of hay home and feed it to my cows. No $50 = No hay.

Maybe my interpretation is wrong. Or maybe the government over thinks it instead of keeping it simple. Or maybe there is simply too much room for interpretation on both ends. ?

 

[greybeard]

And the task of that interpretation falls to SCOTUS--it's what they do.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens." For more
than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection
Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within
the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ...
nationality." The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due
Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States,
including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful,
temporary, or permanent."When noncitizens, no matter what
their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the
rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction
based on their nationality.

 

[SteppedInIt]

GB they don't teach civics anymore. They didn't when I was in school more than 20 years ago.

 

[greybeard]

:shock:
That does explain a lot tho.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Not a chance, any more than any citizen criminal would lose those guarantees. "Owed' works both ways, & whether one individual holds up his end of the 'bargain' or not--the law is still there, as is the constitutional guarantees to equal protection under those laws.

The only time that I know that some few constitutional guarantees are forfeited, is upon conviction, and even those few are appealable.

It seems, a lot of folks forgot what was taught in 7th-8th grade Civics classes.....

I follow what you are saying, but the problem i have at this time in history.... what is a resident alien, and what is an enemy soldier.

I think it would be easily understood (at least in my mind) that in 1940, a german national living in Maryland and bombing the national capital would not be seen as a resident alien, but an enemy soldier.

Their intent not being to live in the us, under us law, but to disguise themselves as a civilian with their ultimate motive being action of war.

That being said, i would rather side on the side of constitutional protection. But i can see an argument for seperation of constitutional rights under certain conditions, at least a more lengthy discusion for non citizen war crimes like this thread we have going here. I enjoy reading everyones thoughts.

Once the us accepts them as a citizen, i see no wiggle room for such.

 

[Nesikep]

So where's the line between a nutbar serial killer and a terrorist?

Not far from me we had a Grade A, #1 primo serial killer, Robert Pickton.. would pick up women and kill them, feed them to his hogs... Just because he didn't use explosives doesn't make him less of a terrorist does it?.. How many did he kill? I think the DNA of 42 missing women was confirmed to be found at his place. Now my big problem is this spent YEARS in court.. I shouldn't have taken more than a couple days.. Guilty of one or two of them, put the rest together and be done with it.

Greybeard, good posts

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Nesi, i see the difference as motive.

One kills or causes destruction to incite fear in a population for political/act of war purposes.

The other murders for individual pathological reasoning.

 

[Nesikep]

I think that's a reasonable distinction, though the end result is the same... innocent people are dead... I'm always astonished at how fast the media and alphabet soup agencies can determine things after the fact... Why shouldn't a terrorist stand trial.. As I said before, I have no problem with the death penalty if they're guilty, I'd just like to be sure of that. Without a real hearing it's just too easy to label someone a terrorist and get free reign to do whatever.

 

[SteppedInIt]

The difficulty lies in what is taught between the difference of a free man and a subject citizen. In today's time we are taught to be subject citizens. Like subjects to a king. Unalienable rights apply to all mankind, with or without a constitution no matter religion, race, or nationality. This is what the Constitution protects. A free man is subject only to himself and common law, which means cause no harm to another. He is not subject to society, otherwise he would not be free. If he is accused of harming another, he has the right to face is accuser in front of other free men(jury) who will decide the outcome. This process has been skewed. When a rancher who burns his field becomes a terrorist, and when we allow someone's right to be trampled, it will eventually get us all. I am sure we all have heard the DHS's description of a terrorist. What was it, Christian, military veteran etc.? Hmmm