So, what does American Citizenship get me?

[Gamingphreek]

Perhaps I don't fully understand all the aspects, but something is really messed up.

1. Enemy combatants (ie: Those in Guantanamo Bay) are, for some reason, being given full constitutional rights and tried in civilian court. I honestly cannot understand why this is allowed. What does American Citizenship give me in this case? It seems that regardless of whether or not I am a citizen I get 100% of the exact same rights as someone who is a Foreign National.

2. I recently read that, because the person involved in the attempted plane bombing on Christmas was not read his miranda rights, a lot of evidence was not permitted in civilian court. Again, if he isn't an American Citizen, why does he get every single right that I get?

3. Studies showed that 1 every 5 that were tried in civilian court that were enemy combatants returned to terrorism. Right now we are quibbling over the inexact science of intelligence not connection the dots when 20% of those we put on trial in civilian court, go back and do the exact same thing all over again.

Through all this it just seems to me that, if I were a foreign national, I could do whatever I want and still get 100% of the rights that I get as an American Citizen...

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that the enemy combatants should have some rights (In accordance with the Geneva Convention as well as fair trial (etc...)), but I cannot understand the logic in bringing them to the same Courts a US Citizen is tried in (With the same rights).

Perhaps I missed or misunderstood something, but, again, I honestly cannot comprehend the logic behind these decisions.

-Kevin

Edit: Update:
http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...-Airliner-Attack-Heads-to-Court-80985312.html

THIS is EXACTLY why you don't try him in civilian court, but in a military tribunal. Now we have to waste time and money (Both of which could be doing much better things) because this moron is now pleading NOT GUILTY!!

 

[DesiPower]

American judicial system is messed up beyond comprehension but dont worry we will find a way to get the son of a gun but it will take time... we have to move very cautiously one more mistake and we might have to set him free. He is black and muslim a double whammy for ACLU - his case will take time but he will be brought to justice.

 

[MotF Bane]

Lots of debt.

 

[Zebo]

Lots of debt.

LOL

And it's because in a partnership there is joint and several liability.

Whether you like it or not, as a citizen of the United States, we are all jointly and severally liable.

Wikipedia defines it as follows:

If parties have joint liability, then they are each liable up to the full amount of the relevant obligation.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Perhaps I don't fully understand all the aspects, but something is really messed up.

1. Enemy combatants (ie: Those in Guantanamo Bay) are, for some reason, being given full constitutional rights and tried in civilian court. I honestly cannot understand why this is allowed. What does American Citizenship give me in this case? It seems that regardless of whether or not I am a citizen I get 100% of the exact same rights as someone who is a Foreign National.

"Enemy combatant" is a nebulous term invented by the previous administration. Through interpretation of the Geneva Conventions it is generally agreed that an unlawful combatant is a civilian who commits belligerent acts that does not qualify for POW status, but may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state.

2. I recently read that, because the person involved in the attempted plane bombing on Christmas was not read his miranda rights, a lot of evidence was not permitted in civilian court. Again, if he isn't an American Citizen, why does he get every single right that I get?

It appears that the conspirator in Detroit was interrogated for an extended time without being 'Mirandized'. The Justice Dept, because of the overwhelming physical evidence that exists and the sheer number of 'eyewitnesses' involved on the plane, has no need to use any 'self-incriminating' statements this dumb ass may have made prior to being read his rights.

3. Studies showed that 1 every 5 that were tried in civilian court that were enemy combatants returned to terrorism. Right now we are quibbling over the inexact science of intelligence not connection the dots when 20% of those we put on trial in civilian court, go back and do the exact same thing all over again.

The persons you refer to were never tried in a court of law or military tribunal --- they were simply released after their detention periods, in most cases, back to their 'country of origin'.

Through all this it just seems to me that, if I were a foreign national, I could do whatever I want and still get 100% of the rights that I get as an American Citizen...

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that the enemy combatants should have some rights (In accordance with the Geneva Convention as well as fair trial (etc...)), but I cannot understand the logic in bringing them to the same Courts a US Citizen is tried in (With the same rights).

Perhaps I missed or misunderstood something, but, again, I honestly cannot comprehend the logic behind these decisions.

-Kevin

Equal justice under law is the phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.

It is what we as a country are all about. What are the last 4 words of the Pledge of Allegiance?




--

 

[Gamingphreek]

Equal justice under law is the phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.

It is what we as a country are all about. What are the last 4 words of the Pledge of Allegiance?




--

You seem to have missed the last part of my post though. I am all for a fair trial and certain rights; however, people who are NOT American citizens should NOT be given the exact same rights I get for being an American Citizen. Why even become naturalized to receive those rights then if you will be tried the same regardless?

Furthermore, given the nature of these individuals' detainment, outside of granting them rights, WHY are they being tried in civilian court. They are not citizens of the United States - there is no debating this. As a result of this and their actions, they should be tried as enemy combatants - I don't understand the grey area here. It is clear as day.

I could program a computer to do this!!!

if ( Suspect commits acts of aggression towards the US )
{
if ( suspect is American citizen )
{
apply American citizen rights
trial in American Judicial System
}

if ( suspect is foreign National )
{
consider POW or Enemy Combatant
apply rights granted by Geneva Convention
trial by military tribunal
}
}

What about back after WWII was over. Should the trials at Nuremberg have never happened? Instead, should we have brought them over and tried them in the supreme court of each nation?

-Kevin

 

[Fear No Evil]

You seem to have missed the last part of my post though. I am all for a fair trial and certain rights; however, people who are NOT American citizens should NOT be given the exact same rights I get for being an American Citizen. Why even become naturalized to receive those rights then if you will be tried the same regardless?

Furthermore, given the nature of these individuals' detainment, outside of granting them rights, WHY are they being tried in civilian court. They are not citizens of the United States - there is no debating this. As a result of this and their actions, they should be tried as enemy combatants - I don't understand the grey area here. It is clear as day.

I could program a computer to do this!!!

if ( Suspect commits acts of aggression towards the US )
{
if ( suspect is American citizen )
{
apply American citizen rights
trial in American Judicial System
}

if ( suspect is foreign National )
{
consider POW or Enemy Combatant
apply rights granted by Geneva Convention
trial by military tribunal
}
}

What about back after WWII was over. Should the trials at Nuremberg have never happened? Instead, should we have brought them over and tried them in the supreme court of each nation?

-Kevin

If the liberals of today were running our country after WWII we would all be speaking German right now.

 

[Robor]

I'm a moronic troll.

Fixed

 

[Schadenfroh]

So, what does American Citizenship get me?

A few extra taxes here and there, maybe? Nothing really stopping you from voting under an alias of a non-voting US citizen.

his case will take time but he will be brought to justice.

If by some fluke he does walk without punishment, one of the passengers that he tried to kill will "deal" with him as soon as he leaves police protection. Not that I condone mob justice....


I agree with the OP. Domestic terrorists that are US citizens, ie Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski should have their trial in a US civilian court. If they are foreign nationals, Geneva Convention applies.

The motive is important here. I have no problem with non-terrorist foreign nationals having their trials in civilian courts. For example, a bar fight gone too far and someone accidentally ends up dead.

But, if a foreign national sneaks explosives onto a plane and attempts to slaughter as many innocent civilians as possible simply because they are Americans, then the said terrorist should get a military tribunal.

 

[rudder]

We have agreements with other nations that we will afford foreign nationals the same judicial rights as citizens if the foreigner is arrested while physically in the United States.

This is all new ground. During World War II if a German citizen tried to blow up the Washington monument, he could have been sent to a military prison because we had a declaration of war with Germany. We can't officially declare a war with al-qaeda since there is no forwarding address to send the declaration to.

 

[dainthomas]

You seem to have missed the last part of my post though. I am all for a fair trial and certain rights; however, people who are NOT American citizens should NOT be given the exact same rights I get for being an American Citizen. Why even become naturalized to receive those rights then if you will be tried the same regardless?

Furthermore, given the nature of these individuals' detainment, outside of granting them rights, WHY are they being tried in civilian court. They are not citizens of the United States - there is no debating this. As a result of this and their actions, they should be tried as enemy combatants - I don't understand the grey area here. It is clear as day.

I could program a computer to do this!!!

if ( Suspect commits acts of aggression towards the US )
{
if ( suspect is American citizen )
{
apply American citizen rights
trial in American Judicial System
}

if ( suspect is foreign National )
{
consider POW or Enemy Combatant
apply rights granted by Geneva Convention
trial by military tribunal
}
}

What about back after WWII was over. Should the trials at Nuremberg have never happened? Instead, should we have brought them over and tried them in the supreme court of each nation?

-Kevin

LOL at all the fascist crackpots in this thread. Are you people seriously saying that non-citizens have absolutely no rights? Or does the government get to arbitrarily choose which rights they have? Should they be able to summarily seize the property of all legal residents and throw them in prison without due process? Should they be able to arrest them solely for practicing their religion or criticizing the government?

The founding fathers gave all the rights in the Constitution to all men within the jurisdiction of the United States, not just those in possession of the correct papers. This thread is a prime example of the failure of our educational system. You don't like Obama? You'll regret giving the government all these extra powers when his people come after you.

 

[rudder]

You can get a Filipino sex slave who wants citizenship.

 

[Hacp]

You can get a Filipino sex slave who wants citizenship.

Where can I acquire one of these sex slaves?

 

[Turin39789]

Where can I acquire one of these sex slaves?

The filipines?

 

[Hacp]

The filipines?

Blah, too far.

 

[rudder]

Where can I acquire one of these sex slaves?

www.craigslist.org

LOL, one of my coworkers has one. He in his thirties and she looks like she just barely graduated high school.

 

[Schadenfroh]

www.craigslist.org

LOL, one of my coworkers has one. He in his thirties and she looks like she just barely graduated high school.

I know that it does occur, but why is this still legal? Does the person agree to remain married to said person for x years in exchange for passage here and citizenship? It sounds like indentured sex servitude.

 

[Gamingphreek]

LOL at all the fascist crackpots in this thread. Are you people seriously saying that non-citizens have absolutely no rights? Or does the government get to arbitrarily choose which rights they have? Should they be able to summarily seize the property of all legal residents and throw them in prison without due process? Should they be able to arrest them solely for practicing their religion or criticizing the government?

The founding fathers gave all the rights in the Constitution to all men within the jurisdiction of the United States, not just those in possession of the correct papers. This thread is a prime example of the failure of our educational system. You don't like Obama? You'll regret giving the government all these extra powers when his people come after you.

Ummm what did you read? Wrong post?

Are you people seriously saying that non-citizens have absolutely no rights? Or does the government get to arbitrarily choose which rights they have?

To this I respond with a quote which, perhaps you missed:

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that the enemy combatants should have some rights (In accordance with the Geneva Convention as well as fair trial (etc...)), but I cannot understand the logic in bringing them to the same Courts a US Citizen is tried in (With the same rights).

Should they be able to summarily seize the property of all legal residents and throw them in prison without due process? Should they be able to arrest them solely for practicing their religion or criticizing the government?

Again, perhaps you responded to the wrong post because I don't know where I argued in favor of anything like that. For that matter, I don't know where I even mentioned anything regarding that.

The founding fathers gave all the rights in the Constitution to all men within the jurisdiction of the United States, not just those in possession of the correct papers.

So let me get this straight, regardless of whether you are an American citizen or not, you get every single right? Shoot, if I knew that I would find the country with the cheapest taxes, get citizenship there, and then work in American. After all, I get all of the rights anyways.

You'll regret giving the government all these extra powers when his people come after you.

Again, are you responding to a different post? I never advocated giving Obama anymore power than he already has. All I said is that foreign nationals committing acts of aggression against the US should not be offered 100% of American rights and tried in civilian court. I never said that they should be tried at all or anything...

As for the last part, from a security standpoint I am probably the most boring person in the entire world. Not to mention, I work for a government contractor - thus, the government already has access to any and all information they could ever want/need

Again, perhaps I misunderstood your post, or you misquoted; but I don't know what points you were trying to make.

-Kevin

 

[DaveSimmons]

3. Studies showed that 1 every 5 that were tried in civilian court that were enemy combatants returned to terrorism. Right now we are quibbling over the inexact science of intelligence not connection the dots when 20% of those we put on trial in civilian court, go back and do the exact same thing all over again.

Does that mean 80% were innocents that we rounded up and tortured for no good reason?

Also, if you were abused at gitmo for years for something you didn't do, you might be looking for some revenge too.

In other words, that statistic by itself proves nothing.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Does that mean 80% were innocents that we rounded up and tortured for no good reason?

Also, if you were abused at gitmo for years for something you didn't do, you might be looking for some revenge too.

In other words, that statistic by itself proves nothing.

No that doesn't mean that 80% were innocent, it just means that 80% weren't dumb enough to get back into terrorism.

-Kevin

 

[GroundedSailor]

I know that it does occur, but why is this still legal? Does the person agree to remain married to said person for x years in exchange for passage here and citizenship? It sounds like indentured sex servitude.

Takes about 6 months to get the provisional green card, then 2 years to get the restrictions on the green card lifted and then another 3 years to apply for citizenship.

'indentured sex servitude' could be another way of looking at it...

 

[Gamingphreek]

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...-Airliner-Attack-Heads-to-Court-80985312.html

THIS is EXACTLY why you don't try him in civilian court, but in a military tribunal. Now we have to waste time and money (Both of which could be doing much better things) because this moron is now pleading NOT GUILTY!!

 

[Fern]

-snip-

The founding fathers gave all the rights in the Constitution to all men within the jurisdiction of the United States, not just those in possession of the correct papers. This thread is a prime example of the failure of our educational system. You don't like Obama? You'll regret giving the government all these extra powers when his people come after you.

I've seen this myth too often lately to let it slide again.

It's not as simple as that. The SCOTUS has ruled in a number of cases on rights afforded to illegal immigrants. This guy (underwear momber) wouldn't get them all, a substantial nexus to USA is required for some rights that US citizens have (not to mention non-citizens, whether legal or not, do not have some rights such as that to vote).

In the underwear bomber's case I do not believe there is any legal impediment to trying him as an ememy combatant in a military tribunal, it was just a decision by the Obama admin to go this route. Likewise with KSM et al.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps I don't fully understand all the aspects, but something is really messed up.

1. Enemy combatants (ie: Those in Guantanamo Bay) are, for some reason, being given full constitutional rights and tried in civilian court. I honestly cannot understand why this is allowed. What does American Citizenship give me in this case? It seems that regardless of whether or not I am a citizen I get 100% of the exact same rights as someone who is a Foreign National.

2. I recently read that, because the person involved in the attempted plane bombing on Christmas was not read his miranda rights, a lot of evidence was not permitted in civilian court. Again, if he isn't an American Citizen, why does he get every single right that I get?

3. Studies showed that 1 every 5 that were tried in civilian court that were enemy combatants returned to terrorism. Right now we are quibbling over the inexact science of intelligence not connection the dots when 20% of those we put on trial in civilian court, go back and do the exact same thing all over again.

Through all this it just seems to me that, if I were a foreign national, I could do whatever I want and still get 100% of the rights that I get as an American Citizen...

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that the enemy combatants should have some rights (In accordance with the Geneva Convention as well as fair trial (etc...)), but I cannot understand the logic in bringing them to the same Courts a US Citizen is tried in (With the same rights).

Perhaps I missed or misunderstood something, but, again, I honestly cannot comprehend the logic behind these decisions.

-Kevin

Edit: Update:
http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...-Airliner-Attack-Heads-to-Court-80985312.html

THIS is EXACTLY why you don't try him in civilian court, but in a military tribunal. Now we have to waste time and money (Both of which could be doing much better things) because this moron is now pleading NOT GUILTY!!

1.) The Constitution does not differentiate between US citizens and noncitizens when it comes to how the government can deprive someone of life or liberty. You may be unhappy that the US Constitution does not enshrine special rights for citizens, but that's the way it is written. If you don't like this, by all means lobby to have a constitutional amendment put in that either gives citizens more rights or strips noncitizens of theirs. Until then, you're out of luck.

2.) See #1.

3.) That statistic is total bullshit. First, it was not 20% of those tried in civilian court, it was actually 20% of those released from Guantanamo Bay. (by way of military tribunals)

Secondly do you know what the military is referring to when it says 'returned to the fight'? It counts associating with people it considers terrorists to be returning to the fight, it considers things such as taking part in a documentary critical of the Guantanamo Bay prison as having 'returned to the fight' and things like criticizing the US in New York Times articles as having 'returned to the fight'. Furthermore the military is unwilling to name those who have 'returned to the fight' or by and large what they have done to merit such a designation. In short, complete and utter unsubstantiated horseshit.

Your US citizenship gives you not only the protections of the US ship of state but access to the unencumbered ability to live and work in one of the nicest places on earth. It gives you the ability to vote and influence the direction the country takes. If your US citizenship is such crap, then why are so many people waiting desperately to get it?

 

[squirrel dog]

Free cheese and midnight basketball .