After much soul searching I have to say that I am more in agreement with the leftys here then I am those who lean right. His status of place of birth is irrelevant, he is a naturalized US citizen. Yes I am loathe to say he should have an attorney. It sickens me that some sleazy (and likely high priced working pro bono) attorney will try to make a name for him or herself and that there will likely be an attempt by the aforementioned sleazy attorney to garner sympathy for him in the media. All that said we live in America and with every little thing we change the evil radical Islamists get a victory and I don't want to give them anything. While I do agree that the fact he appears to be a radicalized Muslin extremist is being down played in the media and that had the bombers been white militia types with connections to the Tea Party would have been played up for all it's worth in the media the fact still is that he is an American.

 

With reference to the bolded part of the quote, in your opinion should Eric Rudolph have been treated as a terrorist in your opinion?

 

With all that said in All Tell's perfect world every time he is spoken of in the media his name would ALWAYS be preceded with "alleged Radical Muslim" or equivalent because as I recall there was always some descriptor like that attached to McVeigh regarding his leanings.

 

Eric Rudloph, yes, a terrorist.

He deserves a lawyer, a military lawyer as he should be tried in a military court as a terrorist.

The alleged Boston bomber is an American citizen and he is entitled to all of the rights that any other citizen accused of committing a crime in this country has under the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason that this man should have ever been allowed to become a citizen, but that is water under the bridge.

 

Our immigration system needs to be far more selective in who is allowed on a path to citizenship and we need to secure our borders. Until the southern border is secure, no other attempts to control immigration has any chance to succeed.

 

Hopefully, the alleged bomber will be convicted and executed in a timely manner, but denying him any of his constitutional rights to gain a conviction would set a very dangerous precedent, IMO. The federal government already takes to many liberties with our constitutional rights.

 

When blowing up bombs in a terror attack, yes.

 

So, Timothy McVeigh keeps his rights but the Boston Bomber shouldn't?

He did say if they weren't born here.

He did say if they weren't born here.

 

So, in Mountain Ref's new interpretation of the Constitution, would John McCain lose his rights if he did such a thing? He wasn't born "here." :idunno:

So, Timothy McVeigh keeps his rights but the Boston Bomber shouldn't?

Interesting that McVeigh killed far more people, 168 and injuring over 800, yet he wasn't tried as an enemy combatant or charged with using WMD's, which is what they want to charge Tsarnaev. Same with the school shooters, but in the Boston case people's views are different. What is the difference here? I see one thing that sticks out, Islamophobia!

 

It's a sad in America, that people want to say an American shouldn't get the rights as others just because they were not born here, or of a different religion than theirs. If you are an American, ANY American, you are guaranteed the same rights!

Interesting that McVeigh killed far more people, 168 and injuring over 800, yet he wasn't tried as an enemy combatant or charged with using WMD's, which is what they want to charge Tsarnaev. Same with the school shooters, but in the Boston case people's views are different. What is the difference here? I see one thing that sticks out, Islamophobia!

 

It's a sad in America, that people want to say an American shouldn't get the rights as others just because they were not born here, or of a different religion than theirs. If you are an American, ANY American, you are guaranteed the same rights!

 

This word has become as overused as racism from the left.

The Oklahoma bombing was before 911. A lot has changed since then..

This word has become as overused as racism from the left.

No, not really, when the word fits..... I am not saying everyone, but it seems like people just want to link Islam to bad things, every bad thing, yet Christians who do things even worse, they are not labled and they don't get some of the extra charges.

 

The government asked a local Mosque to give the dead brother his rights after his death, they refused. They were scared of being associated with him at all, even by performing his rights, as they seen the possible backlash. I don't care what someone does, everyone deserves the rights at death by their religion.

The Oklahoma bombing was before 911. A lot has changed since then..

 

Yes it was, and yes it has. But what about the school shooters? Movie shooters? Mall shooters?

No, not really, when the word fits..... I am not saying everyone, but it seems like people just want to link Islam to bad things, every bad thing, yet Christians who do things even worse, they are not labled and they don't get some of the extra charges.

 

The government asked a local Mosque to give the dead brother his rights after his death, they refused. They were scared of being associated with him at all, even by performing his rights, as they seen the possible backlash. I don't care what someone does, everyone deserves the rights at death by their religion.

 

And I would have bathed him in pigs blood and buried him with a pork chop stuffed in his mouth.

 

And maybe, just maybe the negative backlash has more to do with the actions of Muslim groups like the Taliban, Al Quayda and other radicals. If you want to look for blame maybe you should look at them. And if the non-violent Muslims want to avoid the backlash then maybe they need to more vocally denounce what their "brothers' are doing.

So, in Mountain Ref's new interpretation of the Constitution, would John McCain lose his rights if he did such a thing? He wasn't born "here." :idunno:

 

That would be a question best directed to Mt. Ref.

I cant write the new Constitution, our current administration has beat me to it.

Interesting that McVeigh killed far more people, 168 and injuring over 800, yet he wasn't tried as an enemy combatant or charged with using WMD's, which is what they want to charge Tsarnaev. Same with the school shooters, but in the Boston case people's views are different. What is the difference here? I see one thing that sticks out, Islamophobia!

 

It's a sad in America, that people want to say an American shouldn't get the rights as others just because they were not born here, or of a different religion than theirs. If you are an American, ANY American, you are guaranteed the same rights!

 

McVeigh was before the war on Terror was on anyone's radar and what enemy would the school shooters be considered to be aligned with? Like it or not, the actions of the bombers can certainly be linked to the jihad against America. In fact, if reports are to be believed it was actually mentioned in a phone conversation between the bomber and his mother. How is it Islamophobia when there are indications of a link? Now, as far as we know there is no link to a terrorist group so he should not be held as an enemy combatant and should maintain his full rights. However, there is a lot of support to widen the definition of enemy combatant due to the nature of Islamic terrorists. If the nature of the enemy is to use individuals rather than armies and I buy into their ideas and join the jihad and commit an act of terror, am I an enemy combatant or not?