Wait, He has rights as an American (read before posting about the arrest of "Suspect #2:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johngraves2

I find this whole "in cases of national security" bit a shame. thats a slippery slope and something im sure obama wants. they can just arrest anyone they want to and not give them their rights (if they are a citizen). so will this lead to arresting citizens without just cause? will they start detaining citizens without the right to a speedy and fair trial because of national security? Most citizens know their rights when arrested, but it is the law that they have to be read to you.

And another thing, how were all these police/swat/DHS/Feds able to go door to door and search every house looking for the guy. did they have a warrant for every house? or did each homeowner give permission to search? What would have happened if someone said no i already searched my house he isn't here, you can't come in.

---

YO JOHNNYG scroll down a few in GD.
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/100019-H...o-house-Search

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bryjcom

Yes. You never know when you may be declared an enemy combatant/terrorist. It seems that the definitions can have a rather large window of interpretation

---

Interesting no one either noticed or pointed out This law was enacted in 2009.. 1 year after O's in office. OOPS i forgot not only Gitmo but re-visit the patriot act. The left was bamboozled. WHERE'S NYNCO when i want input from some lefty?????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johngraves2

I find this whole "in cases of national security" bit a shame. thats a slippery slope

---

It's carte blanche for the government to do whatever it jolly well wants, all it has to do is claim "national security" and society collectively nods in agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Covered at length/beat to death in another thread.

---

my bad... skipped right over that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Well, I'd say your chances of that happening are just about non-existent if you don't go around waging war against the US. You know, like detonating bombs and such in the middle of Boston.

---

Its a good thing the founders were'nt waging a war against their own government otherwise they'd be considered terrorists. Think of it as a wall... They can keep the bad guys out but they can keep you in.

But your right.. Just keep changing the law and definitions as you see fit and everything will work out for you.... As long as your guy is in power.

Prior to 9/11/01 we didn't need laws and procedures to cover war against non-traditional armies. Things change whether you like it or not. I don't really see a constitutional conflict with detaining this guy as an unlawful enemy combatant. It's not the government's fault he did what he did in the current environment.

Nothing like throwing the law out the window because of the crime. When you wish the government to just say Fuck-it we are gonna do what we want because we can and want to. Well you reap what you sow.

He still has his Miranda rights, he just doesn't get them READ to him under this clause as it is designed for immediate threats (think Jack Bauer 24). Whether we like it or not he is still a US citizen. His brother, who was shot and ran over, wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cylinder Head

His brother, who was shot and ran over, wasn't.

---

Which is unfortunate... since he would have been game for interrogation.. and would have probably had more information to give than the younger brother.

Absolutely, having read #2's twitter, he's just a stoner and an Obama supporter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Prior to 9/11/01 we didn't need laws and procedures to cover war against non-traditional armies. Things change whether you like it or not. I don't really see a constitutional conflict with detaining this guy as an unlawful enemy combatant. It's not the government's fault he did what he did in the current environment.

---

The problem I see with this is that he's a naturalized US citizen, apprehended on US soil. Unless and until he is stripped of that citizenship, he unfortunately enjoys the protections of our Constitution, which includes the right to a trial before punishment is meted out. Arguing that he is an enemy combatant places the .gov in a position to apply that designation to anyone they choose for the purposes of political expediency.