No citizen rights for NY terror suspect

reply to post by airspoon


He is talking and confessing. He trained in Pakistan. Perhaps you are picking the wrong person to take up his cause. He clearly qualifies for Enemy Combatant.

I do remain torn on this issue though. If only the courts could be trusted to not release a confessed Terrorist on a technicality and they can not.

If a petty thief gets off on a technicality, not big deal, but a confessed Terrorist and Bomber? Justice ceased to be an issue when he started singing. The only purpose served now is to enrich some attorney with no ethics who might get him released to build another bomb that may work this time. If that ever happens, who takes the blame? Those demanding a citizens right for a confessed enemy combatant? Would it not then be your fault?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Snarf

 

It turns out his citizenship probably wasn't stripped. The source is PROBABLY wrong. It is not a law at all that we can strip an American citizen of their citizenship when they commit a crime in this country, before they are found guilty of the crime.

My bleeding heart is not for the criminal, but for the law.

If an American goes over to the enemy, he can be shot without a trial however. Legally I believe. Congress did approve the war on Terror no matter how much they deny it while campaigning. That takes this to high treason.

And that's how easy it is for them to strip you of your citizenship. And all we have is their word that the person is guilty, as I'm sure (ie. positive) no one here on this board saw or interviewed first hand the former owner of the vehicle.

All they need is a story and a pic and a name and everyone thinks he's guilty. It can happen to any one of us for any reason. Just being accused of something is equal to a guilty verdict.

Personally, I think it's a fraud. They say the guy received months of bomb-making instruction and yet his "bomb" is a total hack job amateur hour. Not to mention the fact that he's singing like a canary. What self-respecting terrorist spills the beans minutes after being captured? Doesn't seem right.


[edit on 5-5-2010 by TheComte]

reply to post by Blaine91555

There could be numerous reasons why someone falsely confesses to a crime, that is if he confessed at all. The point is, it doesn't matter whether he confessed or not, he is still an American and still protected by the Constitution thus he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We have to stick to/with our own rules. If we cut corners with one thing, corners will be cut with other things and this goes for anything in life, not just this particular subject. We should set the example of integrity and justice for the world or at least for ourselves.

You see, freedom is not free (I certainly don't mind using that cliche when it is warranted) and one of the costs of freedom and liberty, is a *sense of security. Sure, we could be a lot safer by allowing the police to search whoever they want, whenever they want for instance, but we would have to sacrifice freedom and liberty for that security. I'll add another cliche quote if you don't mind and this quote is one of the most famous quotes from our founding fathers so I'm sure that you have heard it before, but it is more than relevant to this particular situation so I'll quote it anyway. "Whoever trades a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both" -- Benjamin Franklin
(side note: Contrary to popular belief, Benjamin Franklin didn't actually use those words, though he did convey that message.)

Are we going to trade a little liberty by not giving an American the right to a fair trial, for a little perceived security, because we are too frightened about more attacks?

If we set the precedent with this guy, this incident, what or who will be next? Child molesters, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drug users and then maybe shop-lifters? Why not throw in jay-walkers? If we give the government an inch, they will take a mile and they'll take it rather quickly. Sooner or later, you'd see government protesters executed on the spot, for a crime that somebody, somewhere is sure that they are guilty of. There is a reason why we have the presumption of innocence and not all of those accused are actually guilty. It would be foolish of anyone, besides those involved with the case, to think that they know for sure whether this guy is actually guilty or not, regardless of what the media says and regardless of what the government says. We simply don't have all of the facts, or really any of the facts at this point.

If you are so sure of his guilt, then please provide your proof, as I'd love to see it. Then again, if you are so sure of his guilt, then what could a fair trial hurt? If he is so obviously guilty, then I'm sure that a jury of his peers will find him as such.

The last thing that we would want to do, is give the government discretion on who they may or may not allow to receive a fair trial. 1000 years ago, it used to be this way, to where if the king, sheriff or anyone one of influence didn't like you, you would be cast into the dungeon, never to be seen or heard from again. Luckily, we have evolved past this type of "unjust justice" by realizing how wrong it actually is. If this guy is guilty, then I would love nothing more than to see him hung/shot/gassed/electrocuted or any other execution method that could be dreamed up but we will never know whether he is guilty until we are able to hear both sides of the argument. So far, we have only been provided with the government's side of the argument, or a piece there of, and let me tell you, the government is famous for their very effective smear campaigns and fairy tails.

With the information that we have been given thus far, I'm not ready to decide on his guilt and I'm certainly not ready to write him off to condemnation. I want to see evidence provided and his arguments against such evidence, if there are any at all. Who knows, maybe he will have a conscious or a steel pair and decide to save us a trial by pleading guilty and publicly admitting to what he has done or what he has been accused of doing. If he does decide to take it to trial, then he is obviously not admitting to have done this alleged crime and that should be his right as an American.

Of course, this is only my opinion, and the opinion of our founding fathers.

--airspoon

Edited for grammar.



[edit on 5-5-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by airspoon


It's one step away from officially stating all militia are terrorists. Stripping them of their citizenship. And squashing any military resistance.

Sorry if you emigrate from another country you must sign loyalty provisions that place the US above other private loyalties, such as belonging to a radical terrorist organization hell bent on slaughtering innocent Americans.

If you lie when you take the oath to become a citizen or when you fill out your citizenship paperwork, your citizenship can be voided. You are misrepresenting your intentions. Existing American law already allows the US to strip you from your citizenship in such circumstances, and it is only reasonable.

But don't worry, just wait long enough for this president to fix that and declare all muslims as official citizens of the US, without any paperwork. This is essentially what he is doing with the gitmo. prisoners. It is consistent with his stealth muslim leanings IMHO.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The height of personal responsibility and accountability is to live to one's own standards, regardless of the standards to which others choose to live.

Just catching up on this thread but have to say that I have found myself saying exactly the same thing on countless occassions and couldn't agree with it any more.

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
reply to post by airspoon

 

You even come here posting stuff defending this guy... i don't believe it... he purchased the car... his prints are on the car... the reciepts are at the car sales place of business (or now they are at the Police headquarters) and then he was found trying to get out of America....

What more proof do you need?

I think in this case it's not an innocent until proven guilty verdict!!

Proof?, there isn't even any evidence yet.. you know, that whole due process thing where courts rule on relevance and credibility.

Nice 1930s German mind-set mien fuhrer. The govt sucks, their "word" is worth crap when it comes to making allegations against my brother citizens.. this guy is innocent... "trust us we're the US government.. he deserves it" is reserved for the gullible.

Welcome to the GOP/DNC engineered police state.. another sad day for our fast eroding rights.. or just another day under DC Mafia rule.

I just posted in NYC Bomber Suspect Is A Fake and noticed this thread. May 6 I was reading the Red Deer Advocate on line. Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. There was an article of interest in there about a lady who had just returned from NYC from a trip she had been given from work. She was on the scene so to speak during the event. She had just talked to a firefighter and was walking away when she was knocked to the ground by a man running away from the scene. She has been interviewed by the authorites apparently but she said the man didn't look like the man who had been arrested. Make what you will of this but I found it interesting. It could just be a coincidence. Sorry, I have never yet learned how to imbed links.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
He is talking and confessing. He trained in Pakistan. Perhaps you are picking the wrong person to take up his cause. He clearly qualifies for Enemy Combatant.

Perhaps you believe news too much.

You don't know who this person is.
You haven't heard him confess.
You haven't read his confession.

You will never hear from him on tv, radio, or in the papers. He will be locked up (or released as a CIA op in a different country).

How do you people live with yourselves?

Obviously this, or obviously that.

There is nothing obvious. You were told he confessed, you have zero evidence. Your evidence is that the government said so.

They also said he didn't confess, after saying he confessed.

When there is a PUBLIC TRIAL and I WITNESS HIS TESTIMONY ADMITTING HE DID IT.

Then I'll believe it. Same goes for any terrorist suspect. And that's exactly why it won't happen.

These aren't terrorists. These are more than likely CIA ops creating scare tactics to get public support for the US government. They put out fake bombs that don't work, no one is harmed. They got locked up and are never heard from again.

Meanwhile he's shipped back to Afghanistan, to cross the border into Iraq and do the same thing over there to make it look like there are terrorists there also!

Wake up. Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

He is talking and confessing.

When you are threatened, waterboarded, beaten, tortured - you will even confess you are the reason why Waldo is missing.


And as the poster above said: Did you actually SEE these confessions, will you EVER see that? Most probably you will never see this man again, he will "disappear".

Do you really think the government has a problem with effectively eliminating one person for their agenda? They eliminated 3 THOUSAND and didn't even blink!