Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
According to a quick internet search I did, it was reported that both of the bombers were naturalized citizen of the US.
Report: Boston bomber became American citizen on Sep 11, 2012 in Boston | Creeping Sharia

If it is in fact true that they are US citizens, it concerns me that the government wants to declare him a enemy combatant and strip him of his rights afforded to him under our Constitution so quickly. Regardless of how bad the crime was, the US Government better have all its ducks in a row and have some serious information to support that they were working with an international terrorist organization before they start stripping rights away? If they don't have that info, he should be treated the same as OK bomber was. Am I being paranoid or no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,157 Posts
IMO he is an enemy of the state. He should be dealt with as an enemy combatant. They should have done the same with McVeigh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
IMO he is an enemy of the state. He should be dealt with as an enemy combatant. They should have done the same with McVeigh.
Yeah, and soon speaking out against the government can be construed as being an enemy of the state. What about Yeager and his comments? Could the be construed as theats to an established governement and if so wouldn't he be tried as an enemey combatant.

Sorry Harry, dumb idea all around. We want enemies then we need to declare war on those enemies, not some concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Someone who knifes granny at the corner store during a robbery is merely a garden-variety felon, but one who blows up a couple more is an "enemy combatant" on a battlefield? I don't think that holds water as a definition, by any standard.

Had these been infiltrators into the country, that's one thing. Had these been affiliated "sleepers" of a foreign government, that's one thing.

But if citizens and merely gone off the rails, they're little different IMO than any other murderous perpetrator who decided to go down Psychopath Avenue with a full head of steam. Let 'em pay for counsel, let 'em claim to be innocent if they prefer, then if convicted light the gas and toss in a match. They seem to pray to the fire gods; so, let 'em meet the fire gods firsthand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,157 Posts
Yeah, and soon speaking out against the government can be construed as being an enemy of the state. What about Yeager and his comments? Could the be construed as theats to an established governement and if so wouldn't he be tried as an enemey combatant.

Sorry Harry, dumb idea all around. We want enemies then we need to declare war on those enemies, not some concept.
I think your right I might have let my emotion get the better of me. After some further thought we would all be considered enemy combatants for bad mouthing the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
Senators McCain and Graham are dolts - straight up. The Constitution guarantees US citizens a speedy trial if they do something illegal. It does not parse words and intimate that if what you do is bad past a certain degree that you can't have a trial or your trial can be indefinately delayed, it says you can have a speedy trial, period.

Senior senators calling for the abrogation of the Constitution and laying aside a person's constitutionally-guaranteed right to a speedy trial is no different than other senior senators calling for the termination of 2A rights for a different group of folks. In both cases, the senators are espousing ignoring the plain text of the Constitution. As patriots, we cannot allow that to happen in either case.

Now, if the bomber is found guilty in his Constitutionally-guaranteed trial, I have no problem with a public hanging and leaving his corpse hanging to rot and be pecked by the birds. No, I do not think this is cruel and unusual punishment as a corpse has no rights that are protected by the Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,412 Posts
IMO he is an enemy of the state. He should be dealt with as an enemy combatant. They should have done the same with McVeigh.
Good ole emotional Harry............

Yes my friend that is a slippery slope. They were US citizens, committing a crime on American soil and should be treated as the criminal he is. I see assigning the status of "enemy combatant" troublesome on several levels.

1. It legitimizes what they did as an act of war.
2. It allows the US to hold him for as long as they want without due process.

That is a scary thought where they can arbitrarily hold you in a detention facility as long as they want to. Sounds a little too much like communism/fascism to me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
Dead guy was not a citizen.

Guy in custody is a U.S. citizen.

In this country, when a citizen is arrested, we read them the Miranda rights.

Rights are applied equally to all citizens.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Dead guy was not a citizen.

Guy in custody is a U.S. citizen.

In this country, when a citizen is arrested, we read them the Miranda rights.

Rights are applied equally to all citizens.
Not if that citizen is deemed a national security risk to an immediate threat, then they have 48 hours to question him before he must be afforded legal representation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
144,204 Posts
They made a voluntary confession that they were the Marathon bombers to the driver of the car that they hijacked.
Once declared "enemy combatants" they lose the rights afforded by citizenship.

And aside from that the older, scumbag, Brother should have been deported back when he was found guilty on that past Domestic Violence charge.

The younger murderer, terrorist, enemy combatant, needs to be water-boarded as a Get Well present.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
If it is in fact true that they are US citizens, it concerns me that the government wants to declare him a enemy combatant and strip him of his rights afforded to him under our Constitution so quickly.
Welcome to the Patriot Act...... Since we do have such an act(not condoned by me) why won't they use it on gangs, which are terrorists.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
They made a voluntary confession that they were the Marathon bombers to the driver of the car that they hijacked.
Once declared "enemy combatants" they lose the rights afforded by citizenship.

And aside from that the older, scumbag, Brother should have been deported back when he was found guilty on that past Domestic Violence charge.

The younger murderer, terrorist, enemy combatant, needs to be water-boarded as a Get Well present.
I thought an "enemy combatant" is a member of the armed forces of the state with which your state is at war with.

Who declares that a citizen is no longer a citizen and is now considered an "enemy combatant"?

Who gets to decide which citizens lose their rights and when they lose them?

Is this citizen who was captured a member of the armed forces of some state we are at war with?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
I thought an "enemy combatant" is a member of the armed forces of the state with which your state is at war with.

Who declares that a citizen is no longer a citizen and is now considered an "enemy combatant"?

Who gets to decide which citizens lose their rights and when they lose them?
I'm sure whomever in the government determines it's in the best interests of the government to do so. In practice, likely it's based on whim (such as with "rendition" and the like).

One would think there has to be some sort of code or statue authorizing such classifications. Does anyone know what that is, specifically (USC, CFR, whatever)?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,046 Posts
I don't have much of an issue with catagorizing him as an enemy combatant in this case. First of all, it's always done on a case by case basis, so there is going to be thoughtful consideration in making that determination.

Secondly, he's only been a US citizen for exactly 7 months. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't have that much skin in the game, in regards to being an American.

Also, along those same lines, my son-in-law just got his citizenship in March of 2012. And spent over 12 years jumping through hoops. If you're a caucasion from Europe with a skilled trade craft (master cabinetmaker), it takes much longer and more hoops to get your citizenship than if you are of any type of latino or hispanic decent. (What's up with that?) I also know a Canadian immigrant and a UK immigrant who has basically confirmed that as well. Seems like kind of a reverse discrimination going on but that's not the point. What is important is that my son-in-law was told, just because he took the oath and was sworn in, he could still have his citizenship revoked if he screwed up bad enough. They didn't elaborate on the type of screw-up, and how long they could do that to a person, but in the case of the Boston Bomber, I would have no problem if the government revokes his citizenship.

Basically, I don't care what they do to him. The man's a terrorist and murderer. If the government has an established and legal procedure, or vehicle which gives them the authority to deny him certain rights during his trial, revoke his citizenship, or stick him with a military tribunal, then so be it. And apparently they do have such a mechanism in place within the US Code which allows them to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
I don't have much of an issue with catagorizing him as an enemy combatant in this case. First of all, it's always done on a case by case basis, so there is going to be thoughtful consideration in making that determination.

Secondly, he's only been a US citizen for exactly 7 months. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't have that much skin in the game, in regards to being an American.

Also, along those same lines, my son-in-law just got his citizenship in March of 2012. And spent over 12 years jumping through hoops. If you're a caucasion from Europe with a skilled trade craft (master cabinetmaker), it takes much longer and more hoops to get your citizenship than if you are of any type of latino or hispanic decent. (What's up with that?) I also know a Canadian immigrant and a UK immigrant who has basically confirmed that as well. Seems like kind of a reverse discrimination going on but that's not the point. What is important is that my son-in-law was told, just because he took the oath and was sworn in, he could still have his citizenship revoked if he screwed up bad enough. They didn't elaborate on the type of screw-up, and how long they could do that to a person, but in the case of the Boston Bomber, I would have no problem if the government revokes his citizenship.
WOW!

How long does one have to be a citizen in this country to be guaranteed the same rights as every other citizen?

I guess in your America, some citizens are more equal than other citizens.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,046 Posts
WOW!

How long does one have to be a citizen in this country to be guaranteed the same rights as every other citizen?

I guess in your America, some citizens are more equal than other citizens.
You know what... I was born here.

I don't have a problem with immigration and Naturalization. My great grandparents on one side of the family, and my grandparents on the other side of the family were all immigrants. But here's the deal. My ancestors weren't criminals and thugs who murdered people, so they had no reason to fear having their citizenship placed in jeopardy. And their citizenship never was in jeopardy as long as they were lawful.

As you read my post, as long as the government has a legal mechanism in place in the United States Code which allows them to do it, I don't have a problem with it. These things the government is considering doing, such has classifying him as an enemy combatant, possibly trying him in a military tribunal, or even revoking his citizenship is nothing new. It's been the law for a while now.

I'm just saying, I don't have a problem with that aspect of the law. I didn't write it. But if someone doesn't like it, they can always challenge the law. No one has. Maybe you can file a brief with the Supreme Court on this scumbags behalf. Knock yourself out. That too, is also part of our legal system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
You know what... I was born here.

I don't have a problem with immigration and Naturalization. My great grandparents on one side of the family, and my grandparents on the other side of the family were all immigrants. But here's the deal. My ancestors weren't criminals and thugs who murdered people, so they had no reason to fear having their citizenship placed in jeopardy. And their citizenship never was in jeopardy as long as they were lawful.

As you read my post, as long as the government has a legal mechanism in place in the United States Code which allows them to do it, I don't have a problem with it. These things the government is considering doing, such has classifying him as an enemy combatant, possibly trying him in a military tribunal, or even revoking his citizenship is nothing new. It's been the law for a while now.

I'm just saying, I don't have a problem with that aspect of the law. I didn't write it. But if someone doesn't like it, they can always challenge the law. No one has. Maybe you can file a brief with the Supreme Court on this scumbags behalf. Knock yourself out. That too, is also part of our legal system.
I'll post this again:

I thought an "enemy combatant" is a member of the armed forces of the state with which your state is at war with.

Who declares that a citizen is no longer a citizen and is now considered an "enemy combatant"?

Who gets to decide which citizens lose their rights and when they lose them?

Is this citizen who was captured a member of the armed forces of some state we are at war with?


I think whoever checked into this guys background and approved him for citizenship really screwed up. But unfortunately he was made a citizen which makes his rights equal to every other citizen's rights.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,046 Posts
Well, in regards to who decides whether he can lose his citizenship would be a federal judge. The US Attorney would "petition the government" (represented by a federal judge) to revoke his citizenship. Most likely an immigration judge, like the type of judge who administered the oath of citizenship and granted it.

The ability to revoke a person's citizenship after it has already been granted, has been the law for I don't know how long. Many, many decades, if not longer. And in the case of the Boston Bomber, they certainly have grounds to do so. He took the oath of citizenship in which he swore never to take up arms against the United States and pledges allegence to the United States. He obviously took that oath under false pretense. Exactly seven months later, he commits an act of terror on US soil, and allegedly admitted it to the owner of the SUV he carjacked and kidnapped. I would say, if the US Attorney does in fact, petition the government to revoke his citizenship, the federal judge would jerk his ticket so fast his head would spin. But that's just my speculation.

Citizenship has no bearing on whether or not a person is catagorized as an "enemy combatant." An "enemy combatant" can be a foreigner from another country, a naturalized US. citizen (immigrant), or a U.S. citizen born in this country. The SCOTUS has upheld that position recently the last time a U.S. citizen was declared an "enemy combatant." Who makes that determiniation? I'm not 100% positive, but I believe again, it's a federal judge who makes that determination after all parties concerned present their case.

All your concerns have been established and are part of the U.S. Code. Those concerns have either already been upheld by SCOTUS, or hasn't been raised or legally challenged as of yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
Another slippery slope.

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America​

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
This person obviously took his oath under false pretenses.
For that reason alone IMO, his citizenship is and was null & void at the time.

While we are currently not embroiled in any "state of war", this person should be adjudged and tried as not only a "enemy combatant" but a spy as well.
The oath one takes for U.S citizenship should be a serious step; not used to deceive or gain access to freedoms to be used for the sole purpose of killing Americans.

There will be legal problems ahead in classifying this person.

This was a heinous act. It should be treated differently than the person who robs a gas station. Why?

For the same reason the murder of any LE person is treated differently as it represents a complete breakdown and disregard to civil authority; an authority that is charged with keeping the peace, hence our right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

On a personal, not legal note..I declare in my mind this person's citizenship to be null & void!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,046 Posts
^^^^^^^^^^ Amen Brother ^^^^^^^^^^

:hand9:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top