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

[spyder]

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

[Irving]

Don't waive your rights with your flags.

[Bailey Guns]

I guess it's all good as long as you are not on "The list". Throw'em to the wolves without Due process. The Brits used to do this in the name of terrorism. Those terrorists were the forefathers of the Constitution. You claim to love the Constitution but agree to let it be trampled because the media have you convinced he was guilty. Sad. Everybody should have their day in court or you are just supporting a tyranny you happen to agree with. If he is guilty, prove it. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is a foundation of the Constitution. He probably is guilty but not until he has had his day in court.

As many others do you choose to let emotion rather than logic dictate what you say. There is a legal precedent (with at least one case currently pending) for treating US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. I simply choose to look at the facts and make suggestions based on them. I get the whole "he's a citizen" thing. But I'm also capable of looking at other options based on supported legal precedent. If you choose not to, that's fine and I can respect your opinion.

What I don't respect is the over-the-top hyperbole of your post.

[bryjcom]

Just because there is a pending legal precedent doesn't mean its right or constitutional.

Government just got a precedent to fine you if you refuse to purchase something for merely existing as a human... Doesn't mean its right though.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Bailey Guns]

This isn't slavery and times change. And there have been a lot of SCOTUS decisions with which I've disagreed. But the bottom line is this: if you want to make a Constitutional argument I find it a little disingenuous to claim something goes against the Constitution when it's been upheld (or in the Padilla case, upheld by default when they refused to hear the case) by the highest court in the land empowered by the Constitution to hear cases.

And I don't see a moral dilemma in this case at all. Granted...this kid is obviously young and made some really bad choices. So what? People make bad choices all the time. They have to live with those choices and face the consequences. As should this knucklehead. He killed, or was an accomplice in killing, 4 people, maiming and/or seriously wounding hundreds of others and putting the lives of hundreds of others in jeopardy by committing a terrorist act. He chose to do these things in the current political climate where terrorists and terrorism are being fought in a worldwide battle. It shouldn't have been a secret to him that he might face some pretty harsh punishment if caught committing these acts.

I really don't anticipate that I'll be doing any such thing so I'm not too worried about the US gov't labeling me as an enemy combatant. I do believe the US gov't has far exceeded it's Constitutional charter on many levels. But I also don't believe every conspiracy theory that comes along.

And as far as McVeigh goes, the same federal statutes that are in place now that gives the POTUS certain authority were not in place at the time McVeigh committed his crimes. That's the simple, but straightforward answer. Just like laws changed that outlawed slavery.