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

[UrbanWolf]

yet violent felons are coddled in the prison system daily, released due to records OOPS and other misc things.

Define Physically harm. beating you within an inch of your life, Slapping you because you've gone in to shock and need that to bring you out of it? While one is a no brainer. the other in today's PC+ climate can and sometimes is interpreted to be an attack.

As long as he maintains citizenship read him his rights.
The dilemma the left has is Obama Signed off on the No Miranda before being Questioned under an 09 law. He also has not come out and voiced an opinion other than "Get answers now, read Miranda later"

Should have said physically harm result in serve injuries or death.

[nynco]

I agree with Jim, Hound and many others. We should never weaken our rights out of fear or anger, because once we compromise that, whats next?

[spyder]

So, does anyone know what actually ties him to the bombing?

[Great-Kazoo]

So, does anyone know what actually ties him to the bombing?

Sarcasm, right?

multiple video's and still pics of the brothers in the area and on the spot where the bombs were dropped.

Surveillance video from the MIT area of the gun fiight etc

http://news.yahoo.com/police-bombing...201956630.html

Here's the scary part
After the two brothers engaged in a gun battle with police early Friday, authorities found many unexploded homemade bombs at the scene, along with more than 250 rounds of ammunition.

We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene — the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had


http://news.yahoo.com/mass-gov-video...142946907.html

[Irving]

Don't waive your rights with your flags.

[brokenscout]

This is a test run for whats to come,

[Bailey Guns]

On April 3, 2006, the Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear (Jose) Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision. It left the 4th Circuit court's ruling that the president had the power to designate and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.

Hound, I'd like you to explain to me how the highest court in the land, empowered by the US Constitution, has come to the above conclusion. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you believe the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and you believe the US Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to hear and decide cases and judge them based on the Constitution, then you have to believe the president can designate US citizens (under rare and unusual circumstances which I certainly think applies here) as enemy combatants.

Not only did the SCOTUS reject Padilla's case but they rejected it again later on.

Supreme Court Denies Appeals to Seven Gitmo Detainees and Jose Padilla

In his suit, Padilla claimed that as a U.S. citizen captured within the United States, he was unconstitutionally designated as an "enemy combatant," and alleged a range of constitutional violations arising from his detention at a military prison in South Carolina.

Additionally, Padilla said that he was denied access to legal counsel in contravention of his civil rights as guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Padilla also asserted that he was denied access to the courts in violation of his constitutional rights as set out in Article III, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and that the government of the United States refused to permit his writ of habeas corpus in violation of the the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of Article I.

Further allegations made in Padilla’s amended complaint included being confined in conditions that were “cruel and unusual;” being tortured during interrogations; and being denied his right to freely exercise the religion of his choice, among other similar claims of actionable deprivation of constitutionally-protected civil rights.

As relief, Padilla sought only de minimis pecuniary damages, but he had asked that the court declare that his designation as an enemy combatant, his subsequent detention, as well as his treatment while in detention were all unconstitutional and that the government be enjoined from categorizing him as an “enemy combatant” in the future.

In his petition to the Supreme Court that was rejected Monday, Padilla asked the justices to decide whether he has standing to bring his suit, specifically the filing asks if "federal officials responsible for the torture of an American citizen on American soil may be sued for damages under the Constitution."

You may not agree, and that's fine. But to tell me I'm some sort of tyrant trampling on the Constitution is flat out bullshit. Or maybe you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So I will say this again for those of you who don't get it: There is binding legal precedent for the Commander in Chief to designate certain US citizens arrested in the United States as enemy combatants.

[Hound]

Hound, I'd like you to explain to me how the highest court in the land, empowered by the US Constitution, has come to the above conclusion. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you believe the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and you believe the US Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to hear and decide cases and judge them based on the Constitution, then you have to believe the president can designate US citizens (under rare and unusual circumstances which I certainly think applies here) as enemy combatants.

Not only did the SCOTUS reject Padilla's case but they rejected it again later on.



You may not agree, and that's fine. But to tell me I'm some sort of tyrant trampling on the Constitution is flat out bullshit. Or maybe you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So I will say this again for those of you who don't get it: There is binding legal precedent for the Commander in Chief to designate certain US citizens arrested in the United States as enemy combatants.

It's pretty simple. The Constitution states clearly the right to Habeas Corpus, the right to be heard. Through out Americas history we have suspended this right and under Bush we did it again. That does not make it "Right". Those previous times, Lincoln during the Civil war, Japanese internment camps (of which we had one right here in Denver) and now Gitmo have or will be found by history to be flat wrong. That is your precedent. Our forefathers had to deal with a monarchy that could through fiat remove a persons rights. No court or apeal just a tyrant saying because I think you are guilty..... They didn't like it and specifically wrote into the Constitution that everyman should have his day in court. Even the Nazi's got Nuremberg but no you think the American media is closer to justice than a full court. That is what we decry in the current administration and BTW in Bush's administration. While you agree with

looking at other options

it comes down to circumventing the same Constitution you hold up to protect you second amendment rights. If he is guilty, then prove it. Not in the media, not in some secret bunker, not in Rendition, not in the dark but in the open. Let him see his accuser, the evidence and have his day in court to refute or plead guilty. Then, and only then, take him out back and hang him just as we did at Nuremberg.

[Bailey Guns]

It's pretty simple. The Constitution states clearly the right to Habeas Corpus, the right to be heard. Through out Americas history we have suspended this right and under Bush we did it again. That does not make it "Right". Those previous times, Lincoln during the Civil war, Japanese internment camps (of which we had one right here in Denver) and now Gitmo have or will be found by history to be flat wrong. That is your precedent. Our forefathers had to deal with a monarchy that could through fiat remove a persons rights. No court or apeal just a tyrant saying because I think you are guilty..... They didn't like it and specifically wrote into the Constitution that everyman should have his day in court. Even the Nazi's got Nuremberg but no you think the American media is closer to justice than a full court. That is what we decry in the current administration and BTW in Bush's administration. While you agree with it comes down to circumventing the same Constitution you hold up to protect you second amendment rights. If he is guilty, then prove it. Not in the media, not in some secret bunker, not in Rendition, not in the dark but in the open. Let him see his accuser, the evidence and have his day in court to refute or plead guilty. Then, and only then, take him out back and hang him just as we did at Nuremberg.

Or maybe you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So I will say this again for those of you who don't get it: There is binding legal precedent for the Commander in Chief to designate certain US citizens arrested in the United States as enemy combatants.

You either believe in the Constitution or you don't.

I'm not talking about past abuses or ancient kings or little men from Mars. I'm talking about today...here and now and recent instances. You may not like it and your dogmatic idealism may prevent you from thinking it's right. I get that. But two US Supreme courts and several justices disagree with you.

Furthermore, holding someone as an enemy combatant doesn't mean they lose all Constitutional protections. They are still entitled to Habeus Corpus and other rights. If you'd read the information to which I linked and attempted to really educate yourself a bit rather than just saying stupid shit like "Even the Nazi's got Nuremberg but no you think the American media is closer to justice than a full court", you might have noticed that. But no, you've gone and got your emotions and panties in a twist because of what you think you know and your emotional attachments to the same.

And FYI, the Nuremberg trials were not based on the US Constitution and didn't have anything to do with designating a US citizen as an enemy combatant so I'm really having a hard time deciding why they're relevant to this discussion. Or again, maybe you really don't know what you're talking about. That would explain it.

[SA Friday]

There was legal precedence for slavery in this country for a couple hundred years too. SCOTUS not only ruled on it, they supported it on multiple occasions.

There is a moral dilemma in taking the stance that it's OK to overlook the citizenship of a US person. How it this OK with Padilla and possibly these two idiots and not McVeigh? Motive and association? As far as we know, stating either would be speculative at this point. Where is the line? What's the difference between McVeigh's disgust for the Govt's handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge and Padilla's disgust in the Govt's handling of the middle east? When will the Govt use these case precedence to imprison those they deem fit the McVeigh mold indefinitely and with their rights suspended? When will it be gun owners and preppers?

Be careful Bailey. You might get to see what you are arguing for here, and that would be a tragedy. Like rounding up a bunch of citizens and putting them in detainment camps suspending their individual rights because they are feared by their own Govt.