It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does this trump thought not worry people?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: FaunaOrFlora

Being a citizen of the U.S.A. comes with rights, but you lose some of them under certain circumstances. Enlisting in the military is one of them. Are there any others?

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 02:18 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you are caught in the process or committed a terrorist act, I feel you don't deserve your right to trial. I thought I made myself clear before. I didn't pay any attention to the Cliven Bundy episode, so I honestly don't know how I feel about that.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 02:20 PM

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: amicktd

Were they American citizens too? I did not know that.

Can you quote me claiming they're american citizens?

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 02:24 PM

originally posted by: bonsaihorn

They don't care that it didn't say it, they just want to talk trash about Trump. The BBC and most of the posters in the thread that is.

"And he’ll probably even have room service, knowing the way our country is. And on top of all of that he will be represented by an outstanding lawyer," Mr Trump added.

In my opinion Trump wasn't saying he shouldn't have these things, but he was lamenting the fact that he wouldn't have a public defender, but instead (again my opinion) a lawyer paid for by CAIR or some other terrorist-supporting organization. He will be displacing people who need hospital care because of his actions and the government will be footing the bill, where he should have simply laid down his weapon and he wouldn't have been injured.

This is what he said when he was wrapping up talking about the bomber.

We must have speedy but fair trials and we must deliver a just and very harsh punishment to these people.

But you know, anything to talk trash about Trump. Obviously what he meant was instant execution./sarc

Thi s has the relevant portion of his speech

Worth reposting. Notice that both of the other links here the one in the OP and the one by Krazyshot leave out the part about having a speedy fair trail. Better to just ignore his words that don't fit their narrative.

I also didn't take it that he was saying he should be given care or a fair trial (especially when he directly said he should have a fair trial). He was commenting on how this guy will get to be in relative comfort and have is case drawn out for a long time, unlike enemies of Islamic terrorism that are treated brutally.

He wants to get the trial done fair and fast, and if he is guilty, give him a harsh punishment. But someone people on here leave out that part, and spin his words to mean "No Muslims will have any rights if he is elected!!!"

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 02:25 PM
a reply to: amicktd

Maybe, and I'm just goin' out on a limb here - they pick and choose according to whether they are American citizens or not.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 02:40 PM

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

within the quotation marks
"What he means by the old days I guess depends on how far back we go.
Throw him to the lions? Have him drawn and quartered? Hung from a tree, firing squad, electric chair, gas, lethal injection.?????

I don't doubt a lot of Trump supporters would support something like that. Funny how people that claim to stand up for the constitution are the same people ready to throw it out the window.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 03:31 PM

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No hold on a moment. You and I have had this argument about Gitmo. No US citizens housed there, yet you've made the argument that Constitutional protections should still apply. Let's not play do-si-do with our opinions here... pick a position and stick to it, please.

I don't remember having this conversation, but ok let's walk down this path. Saddam Hussein was arrested and turned over to the Iraqi government who condemned him to death and then carried out the sentence. Osama Bin Laden can be argued to have been killed in a police action. Something you JUST got done saying doesn't fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 03:38 PM

originally posted by: amicktd
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you are caught in the process or committed a terrorist act, I feel you don't deserve your right to trial. I thought I made myself clear before. I didn't pay any attention to the Cliven Bundy episode, so I honestly don't know how I feel about that.

Did you know that history of Due Process dates back to John Adams defending the British soldiers who were alleged to have done the Boston Massacre? They were "caught in the process". Do you know what the verdict of that trial was? All the soldiers were acquitted of murder and two were found guilty of manslaughter. If they had followed your idea those soldiers would have all been found guilty due to court of public opinion (ie kangaroo court) and probably would have been hung.
Boston Massacre Trials
edit on 20-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 03:44 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm consistent here. I've not and never will argue in favor of human pieces of crap like terrorists being extended ANY protections, PERIOD. I'd shed no tears if we gassed Gitmo and walked away from the place as the crypt it should be. My point was that, in the past, you have fallen back on the US citizens aren't the only people who should benefit from Constitutional protections argument, so it would be nice if you'd remain consistent.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 04:10 PM
Should somebody be given care if they raped and murdered your children? How about stole everything from your grandparents and left them out in the cold?

This is the fallacy of idealism. You cannot comfort your aggressors. It's not all peaches and cream like in the movies. It's hard and it's brutal and it is death. If you show kindness and don't command some sort of respect the animals will have at you.

But, if you want to truly make the world right you simply need to become your brothers keeper. Be Christ like in you consciousness and go heal the world. Of course you might end up hanging from a cross. Humanity in general are animals of a different nature but animals still. They will act out to the degree in which they are allowed to act out and their aggression knows no bounds. The only thing that keeps them in check is the fear of the consequences.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 04:20 PM
a reply to: Apollumi

I am not saying what you are saying is what Trump said (that was a mouthful).

But yes, even someone who commits the most heinous of crimes should be given a speedy fair trial. That is one of the things that makes this country great.

What if you are wrong. You think someone murders your kid, so you torture them and kill them without a trail. The all of the sudden, you find out they were innocent.

I also find it strange that some many people that are distrusting of the government are gung ho for not providing rights to the accused. I hope you never find yourself accused of terrorism. Heck, Homeland security has already said people that discuss the constitution and talk about conspiracys are potential terrorists, so thats all of us on this thread.

Now am I saying pamper terrorists or let them drive their trials on forever. NO!! I am with Trump, give them a fast speedy trial, and the throw the book at them. If they are clearly guilty, it shouldn't take to complete this.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:12 PM
a reply to: carewemust

Being a citizen of the U.S.A. comes with rights, but you lose some of them under certain circumstances. Enlisting in the military is one of them.

you still have your rights, but there are restrictions, on bases that to do not apply to civilians. unless civilians are on bases and then only certain restrictions apply to them.


warning link opens a PDF.

POLICY It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as “members”) (including members on active duty, members of the Reserve Components not on active duty, members of the National Guard even when in a non-Federal status, and retired members) to carry out the obligations of citizenship. In keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear
SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces

another rule in uniform is you can't call obama a dick, that's disrespect he is your commanding officer.

every duty station i was ever on you could not keep your personal firearms in your room, car, or carry them, except to and from your vehicle to and from the armory. last time i checked it is that way on all bases of all branches unless given the ok by the base commander.

for minor violations of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), one can chose NJP (Non Judicial Punishment) Article 15. or may demand a Court may appeal both but only four verdicts for that i know of must be heard and those are dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge, dismissal (if you are an officer), confinement for at least a year, or death, your case will automatically be reviewed by a military court of appeal. all verdicts for others crimes that you are found guilty of, the courts of appeal have discretion about whether to hear your case.

there are a bunch of other rules that it would take a book to write about them. below is a link on what kind of jury you can have.

(a) Any commissioned officer on active duty is eligible to serve on all courts-martial for the trial of any person who may lawfully be brought before such courts for trial.
(b) Any warrant officer on active duty is eligible to serve on general and special courts-martial for the trial of any person, other than a commissioned officer, who may lawfully be brought before such courts for trial.
(c) (1) Any enlisted member of an armed force on active duty who is not a member of the same unit as the accused is eligible to serve on general and special courts-martial for the trial of any enlisted member of an armed force who may lawfully be brought before such courts for trial, but he shall serve as a member of a court only if, before the conclusion of a session called by the military judge under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)) prior to trial or, in the absence of such a session, before the court is assembled for the trial of the accused, the accused personally has requested orally on the record or in writing that enlisted members serve on it. After such a request, the accused may not be tried by a general or special court-martial the membership of which does not include enlisted members in a number comprising at least, one-third of the total membership of the court, unless eligible enlisted members cannot be obtained on account of physical conditions or military exigencies. If such members cannot be obtained, the court may be assembled and the trial held without them, but the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating why they could not be obtained.
10 U.S. Code § 825 - Art. 25. Who may serve on courts-martial

one more note, most Article 15's and Court Martial's are held pretty fast, unless it's a Big Deal crime like POS bowe bergdahl.

if you live in the barracks, or anywhere any where on base you and your property are subject to search with out your consent.

here is a good article,

Searches Anyone (civilian or military) entering a military installation should assume their vehicle and person will be searched. The law permits random inspections of all compartments of a vehicle upon entering a base. Furthermore, unlike in the civilian system where there has to be probable cause to pull you over in the first place, everyone entering an installation will be required to speak with the gate guard. It’s typical that, at this point, the guard identifies their probable cause for additional search of the vehicle or your person (i.e. probable cause for DUI). Keep in mind that military police have a very specific interest in protecting the installation from terrorist and domestic threats. If you’re uncomfortable with a search that’s being performed at the gate or upon a traffic stop, be clear that you are not consenting to a search — but expect that the search will either continue or you’ll be escorted off the installation.

Military members do not have the same rights against police searches of their home without a warrant as civilians. Specifically, military members who are housed in dorms, barracks, or deployed housing are subject to inspection. Commanders have wide latitude to order that barracks/dorm rooms be inspected to ensure unit readiness and good order and discipline. The right to order “inspections” may not be used as subterfuge to search a specific individual’s room that is suspected of criminal conduct. It’s also important to note that a military member inside their barrack/dorm room is not protected from warrantless arrest (called apprehension in the military). Military police, or command representatives may enter a room to execute their duty to apprehend or issue other lawful orders to a military member (i.e. report to the commander’s office).
Does the Constitution apply to rights of military members?

so as you can see Active Duty Service Members as well as civilians face restrictions on the rights, but don't believe that bs about losing your rights.
edit on 20-9-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in