The Next Step: Stripping Criminals' Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For naturalized citizens, I like this idea. And I understand that if this was applied, I would have lost my citizenship as well. That’s ok, I can keep it real. But for those who are citizens by birth, no this would not be cool. But I think there should be a conviction, not just an accusation. [/quote]

This is not a good idea for naturalized citizens either- you’re getting into creating castes as far as being a US citizen, and that’s not what the country is about.

A conviction of any US citizen should come before a jury. If not, you boys better get ready to start revising that good old Bill of Rights you claim to defend so heartily. [/quote]

So you are saying that a Democrat/Independent and a leftist Republican that is possibly going to be beat by a true Conservative in November then you really do not know who is coming up with this bill.

22

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For naturalized citizens, I like this idea. And I understand that if this was applied, I would have lost my citizenship as well. That’s ok, I can keep it real. But for those who are citizens by birth, no this would not be cool. But I think there should be a conviction, not just an accusation. [/quote]

This is not a good idea for naturalized citizens either- you’re getting into creating castes as far as being a US citizen, and that’s not what the country is about.

A conviction of any US citizen should come before a jury. If not, you boys better get ready to start revising that good old Bill of Rights you claim to defend so heartily. [/quote]

So you are saying that a Democrat/Independent and a leftist Republican that is possibly going to be beat by a true Conservative in November then you really do not know who is coming up with this bill.[/quote]

You’ve left some words out of this, I’m not clear what you’re saying.

23

Citizenship that is earned (not from birth) is a privilege, and if convicted of a treasonous crime should be worthy of removal. I am not talking about getting a DUI, I am talking about trying to blow some shit up.

24

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Citizenship that is earned (not from birth) is a privilege, and if convicted of a treasonous crime should be worthy of removal. I am not talking about getting a DUI, I am talking about trying to blow some shit up. [/quote]

Then you’re setting up a conditional citizenship, and that’s not what becoming a citizen is about. For now it’s blowing shit up, soon it’s if you’re convicted of murder, then it’s if you’re guilty of rape, then it’s if you’re convicted of selling drugs… that’s much too dangerous.

It either has to be all or nothing, and while you may be content with noting, there’s no way I would agree with that. Again, you’re setting up castes.

25

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Citizenship that is earned (not from birth) is a privilege, and if convicted of a treasonous crime should be worthy of removal. I am not talking about getting a DUI, I am talking about trying to blow some shit up. [/quote]

Then you’re setting up a conditional citizenship, and that’s not what becoming a citizen is about. For now it’s blowing shit up, soon it’s if you’re convicted of murder, then it’s if you’re guilty of rape, then it’s if you’re convicted of selling drugs… that’s much too dangerous.

It either has to be all or nothing, and while you may be content with noting, there’s no way I would agree with that. Again, you’re setting up castes.[/quote]

Agree 100%, we are already on our way down the slippery slope. We can’t just try to slow it down, we either have to get back up the slope, or just fucking go all the way down it. Fuck I would rather live in a totalitarian dictatorship where at least I know what the rules are. People can get by if they know the rules, this changing shit every few years fucking slowly entrapping me and making me sub-human is just too taxing.

V

26

You can’t strip citizenship.

Its good to see that Lieberman has shown his true color’s this past year. I can’t wait to shove this fact in the face of all those “independents” that hold Joe in such high regard.

27

[quote]John S. wrote:
You can’t strip citizenship.

Its good to see that Lieberman has shown his true color’s this past year. I can’t wait to shove this fact in the face of all those “independents” that hold Joe in such high regard.[/quote]

I’ve thought this guy was a snake in the grass for years, although probably for different reasons than you folks.

28

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
You can’t strip citizenship.

Its good to see that Lieberman has shown his true color’s this past year. I can’t wait to shove this fact in the face of all those “independents” that hold Joe in such high regard.[/quote]

I’ve thought this guy was a snake in the grass for years, although probably for different reasons than you folks. [/quote]

Ive never liked the guy, something just seemed off about him. Then when he pulled this crap with health care I was done with him but really couldn’t use that to discredit him with liberals(worked with conservatives) but I should have no problem using this to discredit him with liberals.

29

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The word(s) terrorism/terrorist need to be stripped from legal speak.

As far as the law goes there is no distinction between a criminal and a terrorist.[/quote]

It never will be, it’s abstract and malleable enough to permit a range of interpretation with which to control the fates of possible offenders.

Especially with a law like this. With no clearly defined lines separating criminal acts from terrorism, plenty of people could potentially have their rights removed. Easy prosecutions.

30

I’m the far-rightest (is that a word?) of the right wingers and I can categorically without hesitation state that there is not a single true conservative that would ever, in a million years, agree with stripping any citizen of his citizenship based on an act of terrorism. As much as I would personally love to get my hands on this American SOB (and any like him), we are a nation of laws and must abide by them in the best of times and the worst of times.

The difference between him and a foreign combatant is plain and easy to see. Thus the legal distinction exists for a purpose. To paraphrase Voltaire, as much as I may hate his actions, I will defend his rights as a citizen.

31

[quote]doogie wrote:
This is horrible. No conservative could stand behind this.[/quote]

Come now. You guys haven’t seen a real conservative since Barry Goldwater left politic.s

32

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
This is horrible. No conservative could stand behind this.[/quote]

Come now. You guys haven’t seen a real conservative since Barry Goldwater left politic.s[/quote]

Politicians are a breed unto themselves . . . .

33

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Lawmakers like Senators John McCain of Arizona and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Representative Peter King of New York were immediately outraged that Mr. Shahzad �??�??�??�?�¢?? a United States citizen accused of an attempted attack on civilians in an American city �??�??�??�?�¢?? was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and eventually read his Miranda rights.

They are demanding that Mr. Shahzad be declared an illegal enemy combatant, stripped of any rights and brought before a military tribunal. They have opened another round of sneering at �??�??�??�?�¢??the law enforcement approach�??�??�??�?�¢?? to terrorism. That is contemptuous, first of all, of the police officers whose quick actions may have saved untold numbers and the other people who identified and tracked Mr. Shahzad with amazing speed.

…

To get around the inconvenient fact that Mr. Shahzad is a citizen, Mr. Lieberman is even calling for a law allowing Americans accused (not convicted) of unspecified crimes to be stripped of their citizenship and retroactively deprived of due process under the law.

This is not Mr. Lieberman�??�??�??�?�¢??s first foray into this dark territory. He is co-author with Mr. McCain of a bill that would require that anyone arrested on any terrorism-related charge, including American citizens, be declared an enemy combatant and tried in a military court.

Senators already demand that Americans be tried as "illegal combatant.

So were are we now?

Habeas corpus is dead, the POTUS can order the assassinations of American citizens, warrantless wiretraps are apparently ok too and now this.

Cool.

I never thought that I would witness the emergence of a police state.

We can probably also rule out that they hate you for your freedom.

[/quote]

I’m one hundred percent against this but you are oddly concerned with what happens here politically. Is Austria and the EU so perfect that you don’t have anything to discuss or complain about?[/quote]

Or it could be that much of what happens in the US also effects the rest of the world?[/quote]

In some cases yes, but not in this one or many others. [/quote]

I’m not so sure about that.

If the government is willing to use police state tactics to control Americans, what do you think its stance on foreign policy will be?

Probably, not very nice, if I were to guess.

edit-typo[/quote]

It’s not just that. Other Governments have this unfortunate tendency to copy US policy (see Drug Wars)/

35

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

…They are suspects, which is a big difference, much in the same way that not every goat herder that is in Guantanamo is a “terrorist”.

[/quote]Please name the goat herders in Guantanamo who are not terrorists. Tell us the circumstances as to how and why they were placed in Gitmo and then tell us how you are privy to this information. Now if you can do all this then tell us how you know your information is accurate.
[/quote]

We don’t know who’s a terrorist and who’s just a goat herder. If they’d had trials anytime in the past ten years like they should have, of course, there wouldn’t be this question.

I am just impressed that you put all that together. Sounds like a shindig.

37

[quote]
pushharder wrote:

Navajo Joe would have you thinking it’s a done deal that some of the fine folks in Gitmo are just goat herders. He doesn’t know. You don’t know. I don’t know. For all we do know every single one of the cock-licking Islamo-bastards is a guilty son of a Bedouin camel fucker ((I have such a grand time cussing with you here).

What we do know is that some of the goat herding motherfuckers (I have such a grand time cussing with you here) that were released are already back in shit-n-cum stained (I have such a grand time cussing with you here) jihad uniforms.[/quote]

No, he doesn’t know, but I’ve got to assume that because they were released, they didn’t have anything to do with it. And honestly, I don’t trust any government to just take and hold people for ten years without a trial.

Being as there are those who are released because they committed no crimes, there’s likely more in there that haven’t.

[quote]
If you had been alive in 1943 would you have been clucking about German POWs held in Camp Chafee, Arkansas who were not receiving trials?[/quote]

That was a different situation and you know it. I’m sure I don’t have to explain the difference between captured POW’s in a war that had a finite ending point and a war against a fundamentalist cult that could go on for generations.

The natures of the wars were different, thus the nature of the prisoner is different.

Not bad.

38

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

…They are suspects, which is a big difference, much in the same way that not every goat herder that is in Guantanamo is a “terrorist”.

[/quote]Please name the goat herders in Guantanamo who are not terrorists. Tell us the circumstances as to how and why they were placed in Gitmo and then tell us how you are privy to this information. Now if you can do all this then tell us how you know your information is accurate.

[/quote]

Ah, they are guilty until proven innocent.