• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Embracing OT-logic: a new and improved America

Whitewing

Well-known member
Since it's okay to kill Americans on American soil without a day in court because they might be a danger to others, why stop there?

Slavery? Every white man could use a few negroes or spics working around the place. Come on folks, it worked in the past, why not today?

Child labor? Why not? Heck, we could make all those unwanted babies wanted overnight if we could put them to good use in our factories, plants, and crop fields.

Voting rights for minorities and wemmins? Puhlese. We see where that got us. Let's make it law that only white males who own property and pay taxes be allowed to vote.

God, the list is almost endless.

And when the new pub president is sworn in, let's put all those enemies of the state (like OT) behind bars where they belong. If it was good enough for the nip-Americans in WW II, why not Obama knee-pad wearers like OT?

Precedent is precedent afterall. :roll:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Since it's okay to kill Americans on American soil without a day in court because they might be a danger to others, why stop there?

Slavery? Every white man could use a few negroes or spics working around the place. Come on folks, it worked in the past, why not today?

Child labor? Why not? Heck, we could make all those unwanted babies wanted overnight if we could put them to good use in our factories, plants, and crop fields.

Voting rights for minorities and wemmins? Puhlese. We see where that got us. Let's make it law that only white males who own property and pay taxes be allowed to vote.

God, the list is almost endless.

And when the new pub president is sworn in, let's put all those enemies of the state (like OT) behind bars where they belong. If it was good enough for the nip-Americans in WW II, why not Obama knee-pad wearers like OT?

Precedent is precedent afterall. :roll:

Obama has initiated so many executive orders and set so many precedents that he should be renamed "Precedent Obama." :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Slavery is unconstitutional... It was abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution... So is womens right to vote by the 19th Amendment...
Childrens labor laws have been on the books for years...

I know of nothing in the Constitution nor any amendment that mentions drones or the use of them.... I do know that there is precedence for removal of a treasonous persons citizenship...

U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;

2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3.Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4.Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.



And it appears as tho we need some laws directly involving these new class of treasonous citizens - the worldwide terrorist...And possible a ruling from SCOTUS...
But I'm of the belief that a citizen committing or trying to commit a terrorist act is committing treason against the US and should not have to be treated as a citizen...
Me and old McSame are getting to agree more than ever :wink:

Should Americans Suspected of Terrorism Lose Citizenship?


There is a predictably partisan "debate" raging over the arrest of the American citizen who reportedly "made statements implicating himself" in the attempted Times Square car bombing. Because investigators read suspect Faisal Shahzad his rights (eventually), Republicans like John McCain and Joe Lieberman have jumped at the opportunity to paint the Obama administration as terrorist-huggers. On the other hand, Democrats like Rep. Adam Smith say you don't need to toss out Constitutional protections to pursue terrorists. Then there's Glenn Beck, who has just shocked the world by saying something rational:

He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution. We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing.

After arresting Shahzad, interrogating him, and deciding there was no imminent threat to be prevented, investigators informed Shahzad of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney, but he waived them and continued talking. They charged him as a civilian on Tuesday, but John McCain thinks that should frighten you, telling Sean Hannity, "When we detain terrorism suspects, our top priority should be finding out what intelligence they have that could prevent future attacks and save American lives. Our priority should not be telling them they have a right to remain silent."


Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, piles on: "In these kinds of cases, the first preference should be a military commission because you can get more information." But there's that annoying Constitution, which guarantees American citizens the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only noncitizens can be tried in a military commission. But can't we just tweak the 7th Amendment or something? Senator Joseph Lieberman went on Fox News to propose legislation that would strip the citizenship of Americans tied to terrorism:

It’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.


For a rebuttal, let's turn to Megan McArdle at the Altantic: "Can someone explain to me—hopefully using graphs, and small words—why Joe Lieberman is willing to share the precious blessing of American citizenship with Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, and David Berkowitz, but wants citizenship stripped from a guy who strapped some firecrackers to a bag of non-explosive fertilizer?"

And her Atlantic colleague Andrew Sullivan gets sober: "Now recall that McCain and Lieberman were celebrated in Washington for their alleged maturity, wisdom, and elder statesmen experience. They are in fact adolescent hysterics, whose terrorized Manichean view of the world sees nothing but an existential struggle and the imperative to win it. We would have been electing Cheney to a third term. And we barely knew it."
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
OT would the communist party fall under the heading of "terrorist organization" and Americans affiliated in any way would thus be eligible to lose their citizenship?? That would take out half the white house and congress.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Slavery is unconstitutional... It was abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution... So is womens right to vote by the 19th Amendment...
Childrens labor laws have been on the books for years...

I know of nothing in the Constitution nor any amendment that mentions drones or the use of them.... I do know that there is precedence for removal of a treasonous persons citizenship...

U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;

2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3.Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4.Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.



And it appears as tho we need some laws directly involving these new class of treasonous citizens - the worldwide terrorist...And possible a ruling from SCOTUS...
But I'm of the belief that a citizen committing or trying to commit a terrorist act is committing treason against the US and should not have to be treated as a citizen...
Me and old McSame are getting to agree more than ever :wink:

Should Americans Suspected of Terrorism Lose Citizenship?


There is a predictably partisan "debate" raging over the arrest of the American citizen who reportedly "made statements implicating himself" in the attempted Times Square car bombing. Because investigators read suspect Faisal Shahzad his rights (eventually), Republicans like John McCain and Joe Lieberman have jumped at the opportunity to paint the Obama administration as terrorist-huggers. On the other hand, Democrats like Rep. Adam Smith say you don't need to toss out Constitutional protections to pursue terrorists. Then there's Glenn Beck, who has just shocked the world by saying something rational:

He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution. We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing.

After arresting Shahzad, interrogating him, and deciding there was no imminent threat to be prevented, investigators informed Shahzad of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney, but he waived them and continued talking. They charged him as a civilian on Tuesday, but John McCain thinks that should frighten you, telling Sean Hannity, "When we detain terrorism suspects, our top priority should be finding out what intelligence they have that could prevent future attacks and save American lives. Our priority should not be telling them they have a right to remain silent."


Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, piles on: "In these kinds of cases, the first preference should be a military commission because you can get more information." But there's that annoying Constitution, which guarantees American citizens the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only noncitizens can be tried in a military commission. But can't we just tweak the 7th Amendment or something? Senator Joseph Lieberman went on Fox News to propose legislation that would strip the citizenship of Americans tied to terrorism:

It’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.


For a rebuttal, let's turn to Megan McArdle at the Altantic: "Can someone explain to me—hopefully using graphs, and small words—why Joe Lieberman is willing to share the precious blessing of American citizenship with Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, and David Berkowitz, but wants citizenship stripped from a guy who strapped some firecrackers to a bag of non-explosive fertilizer?"

And her Atlantic colleague Andrew Sullivan gets sober: "Now recall that McCain and Lieberman were celebrated in Washington for their alleged maturity, wisdom, and elder statesmen experience. They are in fact adolescent hysterics, whose terrorized Manichean view of the world sees nothing but an existential struggle and the imperative to win it. We would have been electing Cheney to a third term. And we barely knew it."

You keep posting the same tired crap about treason over and over again yet keep leaving out the most important part......the Constitution's right of American citizens to due process. Deny an American citizen due process and you have violated that precious Constitution that you fought for with your 180 years+ of law enforcement experience.

All the other silly crap is just a diversion from the subject at hand.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I know of nothing in the Constitution nor any amendment that mentions drones or the use of them.... I do know that there is precedence for removal of a treasonous persons citizenship...

I can't believe you can keep coming up with such stupid comments. An 8th grade debating class would hand you your fat ass.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
WW, you are trying to reason with a guy that thinks Bush's wiretapping, without a court order, was illegal, but assassination without a court order, is legal.


Even though the Constitution never mentioned aything about telephones or the internet.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Slavery is unconstitutional... It was abolished by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution... So is womens right to vote by the 19th Amendment...
Childrens labor laws have been on the books for years...

I know of nothing in the Constitution nor any amendment that mentions drones or the use of them.... I do know that there is precedence for removal of a treasonous persons citizenship...

U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;

2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3.Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4.Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.



And it appears as tho we need some laws directly involving these new class of treasonous citizens - the worldwide terrorist...And possible a ruling from SCOTUS...
But I'm of the belief that a citizen committing or trying to commit a terrorist act is committing treason against the US and should not have to be treated as a citizen...
Me and old McSame are getting to agree more than ever :wink:

Should Americans Suspected of Terrorism Lose Citizenship?


There is a predictably partisan "debate" raging over the arrest of the American citizen who reportedly "made statements implicating himself" in the attempted Times Square car bombing. Because investigators read suspect Faisal Shahzad his rights (eventually), Republicans like John McCain and Joe Lieberman have jumped at the opportunity to paint the Obama administration as terrorist-huggers. On the other hand, Democrats like Rep. Adam Smith say you don't need to toss out Constitutional protections to pursue terrorists. Then there's Glenn Beck, who has just shocked the world by saying something rational:

He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution. We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing.

After arresting Shahzad, interrogating him, and deciding there was no imminent threat to be prevented, investigators informed Shahzad of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney, but he waived them and continued talking. They charged him as a civilian on Tuesday, but John McCain thinks that should frighten you, telling Sean Hannity, "When we detain terrorism suspects, our top priority should be finding out what intelligence they have that could prevent future attacks and save American lives. Our priority should not be telling them they have a right to remain silent."


Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, piles on: "In these kinds of cases, the first preference should be a military commission because you can get more information." But there's that annoying Constitution, which guarantees American citizens the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only noncitizens can be tried in a military commission. But can't we just tweak the 7th Amendment or something? Senator Joseph Lieberman went on Fox News to propose legislation that would strip the citizenship of Americans tied to terrorism:

It’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.


For a rebuttal, let's turn to Megan McArdle at the Altantic: "Can someone explain to me—hopefully using graphs, and small words—why Joe Lieberman is willing to share the precious blessing of American citizenship with Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, and David Berkowitz, but wants citizenship stripped from a guy who strapped some firecrackers to a bag of non-explosive fertilizer?"

And her Atlantic colleague Andrew Sullivan gets sober: "Now recall that McCain and Lieberman were celebrated in Washington for their alleged maturity, wisdom, and elder statesmen experience. They are in fact adolescent hysterics, whose terrorized Manichean view of the world sees nothing but an existential struggle and the imperative to win it. We would have been electing Cheney to a third term. And we barely knew it."

You keep posting the same tired crap about treason over and over again yet keep leaving out the most important part......the Constitution's right of American citizens to due process. Deny an American citizen due process and you have violated that precious Constitution that you fought for with your 180 years+ of law enforcement experience.

All the other silly crap is just a diversion from the subject at hand.

Well I guess I'm in good company of being silly... McCain and Lieberman also believe that citizens that turn terrorist and pose a big threat to the country give up their rights as a citizen...
Once they no longer pose a threat- I believe they should be given all the rights of a citizen-- but as long as they are a threat to this country or its citizens - they should be a target....

On another subject-- didn't you say you joined the Venezuelan or a provincial militia so you could legally carry a sidearm :???:

U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;

2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3.Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4.Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;

5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
OldNowMcSameIsGoodCompany said:
Well I guess I'm in good company of being silly... McCain and Lieberman also believe that citizens that turn terrorist and pose a big threat to the country give up their rights as a citizen...

Are you in good company? Did McCain and Lieberman stipulate that a high government official would decide who had turned terrorist or a court?

OldBrainDead said:
On another subject-- didn't you say you joined the Venezuelan or a provincial militia so you could legally carry a sidearm

No, I said no such thing. I didn't join the Venezuelan military, provincial militia or any other such body. I was given credentials for the Venezuelan National Guard in order to participate legally with them in various field operations in the investigation of assorted crimes.

That credential specificially noted that I was not authorized to carry a firearm by having that credential in my possession.

I do carry a sidearm legally because I went through the certification process with DARFA and was granted a 'porte de arma' which will expire next year. I do not yet know if I can renew it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
OldNowMcSameIsGoodCompany said:
Well I guess I'm in good company of being silly... McCain and Lieberman also believe that citizens that turn terrorist and pose a big threat to the country give up their rights as a citizen...

Are you in good company? Did McCain and Lieberman stipulate that a high government official would decide who had turned terrorist or a court?

OldBrainDead said:
On another subject-- didn't you say you joined the Venezuelan or a provincial militia so you could legally carry a sidearm

No, I said no such thing. I didn't join the Venezuelan military, provincial militia or any other such body. I was given credentials for the Venezuelan National Guard in order to participate legally with them in various field operations in the investigation of assorted crimes.

That credential specificially noted that I was not authorized to carry a firearm by having that credential in my possession.

I do carry a sidearm legally because I went through the certification process with DARFA and was granted a 'porte de arma' which will expire next year. I do not yet know if I can renew it.

And I've said I have no problem with sitting up a court and having a Judge make that decision.... Altho having another Court meeting daily to follow these terrorist activities and the individual terrorists until some midnight when a ruling is immediately needed- would be another cost and another bureaucracy....
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
OldNowMcSameIsGoodCompany said:
Well I guess I'm in good company of being silly... McCain and Lieberman also believe that citizens that turn terrorist and pose a big threat to the country give up their rights as a citizen...

Are you in good company? Did McCain and Lieberman stipulate that a high government official would decide who had turned terrorist or a court?

OldBrainDead said:
On another subject-- didn't you say you joined the Venezuelan or a provincial militia so you could legally carry a sidearm

No, I said no such thing. I didn't join the Venezuelan military, provincial militia or any other such body. I was given credentials for the Venezuelan National Guard in order to participate legally with them in various field operations in the investigation of assorted crimes.

That credential specificially noted that I was not authorized to carry a firearm by having that credential in my possession.

I do carry a sidearm legally because I went through the certification process with DARFA and was granted a 'porte de arma' which will expire next year. I do not yet know if I can renew it.

And I've said I have no problem with sitting up a court and having a Judge make that decision.... Altho having another Court meeting daily to follow these terrorist activities and the individual terrorists until some midnight when a ruling is immediately needed- would be another cost and another bureaucracy....

Yeah, certainly a lot quicker, easier, and less expensive to have that high government official make the call for us. We know how well that worked with WMD's etc. :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
And I've said I have no problem with sitting up a court and having a Judge make that decision.... Altho having another Court meeting daily to follow these terrorist activities and the individual terrorists until some midnight when a ruling is immediately needed- would be another cost and another bureaucracy....

why not let the judges multitask... While waiting 24-7 for a terrorist to kill, they could get through some of the deportation backlog... and if the illegal don't show up for their court time, .. the justices could practice by seeing how well the drones work out in getting the wayward illegals...

solving two problems at once...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
And I've said I have no problem with sitting up a court and having a Judge make that decision.... Altho having another Court meeting daily to follow these terrorist activities and the individual terrorists until some midnight when a ruling is immediately needed- would be another cost and another bureaucracy....

why not let the judges multitask... While waiting 24-7 for a terrorist to kill, they could get through some of the deportation backlog... and if the illegal don't show up for their court time, .. the justices could practice by seeing how well the drones work out in getting the wayward illegals...

solving two problems at once...


In their hunt for "terrorists", they could sign a "drone strike" order, against those suspected cartel members/terrorists, OT is so afraid of?


Just wait for dark and drop a few Hellfires and napalm on their well worn paths, across the border
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Steve said:
And I've said I have no problem with sitting up a court and having a Judge make that decision.... Altho having another Court meeting daily to follow these terrorist activities and the individual terrorists until some midnight when a ruling is immediately needed- would be another cost and another bureaucracy....

why not let the judges multitask... While waiting 24-7 for a terrorist to kill, they could get through some of the deportation backlog... and if the illegal don't show up for their court time, .. the justices could practice by seeing how well the drones work out in getting the wayward illegals...

solving two problems at once...

Please, let's keep this simple. We're only talking about the lives of American citizens here. True government leadership would never make a mistake and act based upon wrong, partially inaccurate, or incomplete data.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland," Mr Holder said.
His statement was described as "more than frightening" by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration's position on the subject.
"It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," said Mr Paul, a 50-year-old favourite of the anti-government Tea Party movement, who is expected to run for president in 2016.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland," Mr Holder said.
His statement was described as "more than frightening" by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration's position on the subject.
"It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," said Mr Paul, a 50-year-old favourite of the anti-government Tea Party movement, who is expected to run for president in 2016.

While I agree with Paul, McCain, and Lieberman that we need a law spelling out the procedure-- I'm also very happy that until we get that (from a Dysfunctional Congress- which could be years :???: ) that we have a President and AG that have enough balls to take that action....
What would be different with this-- from the President authorizing the military to take down a hi-jacked airplane that was heading for another World Trade Center event?
Either way- there is going to be a lot of dead civilians/citizens-- but I would have to back the decision to minimize the damage.....

The courts give a lot of leeway on crimes in progress and exigent circumstances...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland," Mr Holder said.
His statement was described as "more than frightening" by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration's position on the subject.
"It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," said Mr Paul, a 50-year-old favourite of the anti-government Tea Party movement, who is expected to run for president in 2016.

While I agree with Paul, McCain, and Lieberman that we need a law spelling out the procedure-- I'm also very happy that until we get that (from a Dysfunctional Congress- which could be years :???: ) that we have a President and AG that have enough balls to take that action....
What would be different with this-- from the President authorizing the military to take down a hi-jacked airplane that was heading for another World Trade Center event?
Either way- there is going to be a lot of dead civilians/citizens-- but I would have to back the decision to minimize the damage.....


but eavesdropping on a phone call, to saves lives, without a court order, was illegal, correct?
 
Top