PDA

View Full Version : Who knows the Constitution...




luaPnoR
10-03-2011, 12:29 AM
So where in the constitution does it talk about the rights to receive a fair trial? Was Obama's order to kill Alwahi illegal? Someone wrote this to me and I don't know the constitution by heart, so can anyone here help?

"Within the several states or its territories Alwahi may have had rights. He then, may be be taken to a specific place where he could be tried. But what article of the constitution do you cite that the commander in chief of the military should not, or must not defend the United States in places where the enemies of the United States are not located within its borders? In the civil war did we give the Miranda rights to the rebels??? Get real. The Miranda rights are not for the battle field. You are out on a limb -- thinking that somehow on a battle field we give the Miranda rights, or that the rights of citizens apply. No! The supreme court has examined this issue A NUMBER OF TIMES. I AGREE WITH THEIR FINDING. The rights of citizen do not apply to enemy combatants on the battle field."

LatinsforPaul
10-03-2011, 01:18 AM
The Bill of Rights...


Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright*, and Crawford v. Washington*. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibitio*n on forced self-incri*mination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertaine*d by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation*; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

PierzStyx
10-03-2011, 03:32 AM
Also, Yemen is not "the battlefield." We have no troops there and are in no combat there. It is simply another country. This is a lot different from shooting back at a soldier on a battlefield trying to kill you. You friend should know that once teh Civil War was over the rebels leaders were given a fair trial, including the best known ones such as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. They weren't executed after combat was over or even after found guilty. The were given their 6th Amendment rights. And teh Miranda Laws weren't instituted for another hundred years either and have never applied to combat, only police officers.

gerryb
10-03-2011, 04:39 AM
Why did we give trials to nazi's instead of just executing them, after the war had ended?

libertyjam
10-03-2011, 07:59 AM
When you declare the entire world your battleground, the majority of the world will end up against you

Travlyr
10-03-2011, 08:08 AM
So where in the constitution does it talk about the rights to receive a fair trial? Was Obama's order to kill Alwahi illegal? Someone wrote this to me and I don't know the constitution by heart, so can anyone here help?

"Within the several states or its territories Alwahi may have had rights. He then, may be be taken to a specific place where he could be tried. But what article of the constitution do you cite that the commander in chief of the military should not, or must not defend the United States in places where the enemies of the United States are not located within its borders? In the civil war did we give the Miranda rights to the rebels??? Get real. The Miranda rights are not for the battle field. You are out on a limb -- thinking that somehow on a battle field we give the Miranda rights, or that the rights of citizens apply. No! The supreme court has examined this issue A NUMBER OF TIMES. I AGREE WITH THEIR FINDING. The rights of citizen do not apply to enemy combatants on the battle field."
Trials are held to find out if the accusations are true. The administration is not even providing evidence. The accused was not even allowed to surrender. He was hunted like an animal. Are we simply barbarians? What did he know that they did not want to come to light? I disagree with assassinations especially of citizens as it is a clear violation of the law. Who else is on the hit list?

Carehn
10-03-2011, 08:12 AM
You should ask him if he feels the same way when they label him a financial terrorist because he is saving food and driving the cost up.

acptulsa
10-03-2011, 08:13 AM
Article III, section two, paragraph 3: The trial of all crimes, except in cass of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Article III, section 3, paragraph 1: Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment fof a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval orces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without the process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an imparitial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; so have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of councel for his defense.

And so did our forefathers attempt to give us freedom rather than tyranny, so that we could live as humans rather than animals.

CaptUSA
10-03-2011, 08:17 AM
It would seem to me that even if you took the position that it is ok to kill enemy combatants regardless of their US citizenship, that you would at least need a court to review the case to see if a person could be labeled an enemy combatant. Right? I mean, this person would still need to be defended in a court to be put on this list.

I don't see how anyone can defend this. If the executive branch can just put this label on someone, then we are all in trouble. Especially those of us who have serious problems with the way the government behaves.

luaPnoR
10-03-2011, 11:34 AM
Thanks everybody! I showed him the Bill of Rights Articles. We'll see what he has to say about that. :)

eduardo89
10-03-2011, 12:03 PM
Why did we give trials to nazi's instead of just executing them, after the war had ended?

You really think the Nuremberg Trials were real trials? They were show trials, a mockery of the justice system. It was victor's justice for crimes that were only decreed as crimes after the fact. Not to mention you had the same people acting as victims, prosecutors, judges and writers of the legal framework. On top of that, you had the Soviets participating. The Soviets committed crimes just as unspeakable as the Nazis.

Feeding the Abscess
10-03-2011, 12:05 PM
You really think the Nuremberg Trials were real trials? They were show trials, a mockery of the justice system. It was victor's justice for crimes that were only decreed as crimes after the fact. Not to mention you had the same people acting as victims, prosecutors, judges and writers of the legal framework. On top of that, you had the Soviets participating. The Soviets committed crimes just as unspeakable as the Nazis.

And even then, Nuremberg serves as the pinnacle of justice in comparison to what we now live under.

luaPnoR
10-04-2011, 12:22 PM
AND.... here's his response:

"Perhaps you thought I was unaware of these things. The judicial branch does not trump the executive brand in defense of the country. Sooo, you will not find those rebel soldiers, who committed treason in the civil war going to a jury trial. Your interpretation, is just that your interpretation. No supreme court has ever ruled this way.

There are other problems with your case. Is it treason if you renounce your citizenship. If your reason for giving aid and material comfort to an avowed enemy of the US is that you have renounced your citizenship, then can, or should you be allowed, the protection and rights of that which you have renounced. You perhaps are not aware that most careful writers on this subject do not specifically call this man an American citizen. The reason is that, though born here, of Yemeni parents, and having a US birth certificate are not the only factors that make one a US citizen. In Alwaki's case he went back to Yemen, where he picked up citizenship in that country. he returned here as an adult on on a Yemeni passport, with a green card, not as a US citizen. He applied for a SS# to work in the US as as a legal green card student. He obtained that SS# to work as a foreigner in the US, not as a US citizen. Why are you so interested in giving him a status that, he, himself did not want?"

Iseek_knowledge
10-04-2011, 12:36 PM
I think you have to explain to him that you don't have any interest in the actual person who was killed but rather the principle.

I could not care less if Alwaki is dead or alive, it was the manner in which he was killed which is freighting.

luaPnoR
10-04-2011, 12:58 PM
Oh and now there's more from him: "Ron Paul is quite ambiguous about a lot of things. Why does he believe it against the constitution to go into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, or others like him? Presumably it has something to do with the fact that we have no declaration of war. Of course you can not declare war against an organization, like Al Kaida, because it is not a state. The commander in chief then acts without a declaration of war. This is historical precedence in the US, and been upheld by the supreme court as constitutional, going back almost to our country's founding. I believe Ron Paul's view on economics, and especially the role the military needs to play in protecting our economic freedom on the open seas, is shallow at best., and likely to cause major war and the death of millions at worst. No action of the military can be sustained long without the support of congress. It must give the money. In the case before us, an avowed enemy of the US has been killed in the course of battle. It is a military action that has received, but its funding and approval from both the house and the senate. These types of actions have in the past, been approved by our judicial system, to assure us that the actions were legal under the constitution. A rebel would have laughed at Ron Paul out on the battle field giving him his Miranda rights. It would have been insane to do so then, it is insane to do so now."

luaPnoR
10-05-2011, 11:19 AM
GOD this guy is like a thorn in my shoe!

"Regarding domestic policy, mostly... I think his libertarian views are so far right that he no longer embraces the reason God gave government, i.e to curb evil. I do not embrace hardly any of his views- be it on homosexuality, marriage, and not even completely on abortion- since he recently made it clear, he would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest and a few other things. I certainly do not think the gold standard is an answer to any of our economic problems. To propose it is a foolish solution that goes nowhere but into deeper trouble in the ditch on the other side of the road. He, like so many other candidates wants to excuse his beliefs on many of these issues, saying they are states rights issues. I am sorry John, I do not want some one to be president who allows for abortion at the state level. Why would I want someone who tolerates murder to be our president? or homosexuality, or does not support godly marriage? If we were simply speaking of a balanced budget, smaller government, and less regulation, I would certainly agree. However, what advantage does he have on these things over several of the other republican candidates? Incidentally, since it is my B-day. I will give you this. I support Ron Paul's health care position more than any other candidates. I am having a hard time finding a presidential candidate I really like."

ANOTHER RELATED QUESTION:

I'm a super conservative Christian. Lutheran. We go to church just about every Sunday. My Father-in-law is a pastor, etc. Anyway, I agree with Ron Paul on everything... Drugs, gay marriage, guns etc. BUT I'm unshakable on abortion. It's murder period. If there was a Federal Law to ban it I'd support it in a heartbeat. Anyway that being said... IS Ron Paul pro life or what? I always thought he was until that last debate when he said something about it being ok in cases of rape and incest and the Morning After Pill was ok. Is that what he really meant? I have a few f riends who have loved Ron Paul since 2007... until they heard him say this at the last debate. Now they are saying they can't support him. :( There's GOT to be a logical reason Ron Paul said these things. He can't possible be ok with abortion can he?

acptulsa
10-05-2011, 11:26 AM
He's not in favor of the gold standard, but competing currencies. He doesn't want abortion allowed at the state level so he'll stick to having it allowed on the national level--and everyone, himself included, forced to subsidize it. He only proposes the day after pill, not abortion, in the case of rape or incest, believing that conception happens when the fertilized egg actually attaches. He supports the right of churches only to define marriage; sorry if this guy considers government Godlier than churches. And what more advantage does he need on budgetary issues than a voting record that backs his rhetoric?

pcosmar
10-05-2011, 11:33 AM
It really is hard to argue with idiots.

acptulsa
10-05-2011, 11:34 AM
It really is hard to argue with idiots.

Naw, it's easy as hell.

The hard part is getting them to admit they're pwned and shut up.

luaPnoR
10-06-2011, 12:47 PM
Well shoot. I believe that life begins at fertilization... even before it attaches. BUT I think bringing the issue down to the state level is still a good idea. If individual states are allowed to vote on it some states WILL ban it and therefore many lives will be saved. It's at least a start in the right direction and I don't believe the other candidates will do anything about abortion.