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

 

Were any of them linked to the war on terror?

I guess I will be labeled as an Islamaphobe but to be clear, if McVeigh was part of a group that wanted to overthrow the US government I would have been fine with him being treated as an enemy combatant. I don't remember if he was linked to one or not.

The problem with making rights conditional is that it removes the logic of having rights in the first place. The point is that there are certain things the government cannot do or cannot do without substantial burden, specifically in criminal cases (this also means the people who wrote the documents knew full well they would be used in the favor of some unsavory things or people).

 

I see two major problems with making rights conditional. One, these rights allow someone who is falsely accused to fight the accusation. A system of government where a mere accusation leads to punishment, including death, is an arbitrarily powerful one. Two, the government gets to define which persons’ rights may be ignored. If the government does not need to abide by the constitution if it accuses someone of terrorism, and it gets to define terrorism, then there is nothing to stop it from labeling anyone a terrorist and acting outside the constitution. Thus, rights become meaningless.

 

Not too long ago, many on this forum were outraged that some right-wing groups and positions were labeled “extremist” on a DHS report. Now many are saying so long as the government assigns a label to a person or group it may take actions against them without restriction. Ponder the ramifications of that.

I guess I will be labeled as an Islamaphobe but to be clear, if McVeigh was part of a group that wanted to overthrow the US government I would have been fine with him being treated as an enemy combatant. I don't remember if he was linked to one or not.

 

 

I don't know how accurate this is but here's a cursory find on McVeigh:

 

McVeigh, a militia movement sympathizer and Persian Gulf War veteran, sought revenge against the federal government for their handling of the Waco Siege, which ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years prior to the bombing, as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. McVeigh hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government.

 

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :thumb:

Thanks, I was thinking he was part of a group but it sounds like he was more a lone wolf type.

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:

 

The 'accepted' story is that McCain was born in Naval medical facilities at the submarine base in the canal zone. Thus making him qualified for the office of POTUS as a natural born Citizen. So even with MR's new approach he would not 'lose' anything. Though a few years after his birth a law was passed that made anyone born in the zone a naturalized (like the bomber brothers) citizen. Had McCain been considered naturalized he would not have been able to make his top office runs.

 

In the current world naturalized citizens hold every Constitutional right that natural born Citizens do. And SCOTUS has ruled that way in various rulings. It seems that anyone, regardless of source of citizenship, may have their Miranda rights withheld for short period of time in order for critical information to be obtained for purposes of immediate and ongoing investigation. And that capability seems to be 'enhanced' via NDAA.

 

I believe that if Sen. Lindsey Graham and others had not made their ill-timed comments about 'enemy combatant' status the FBI would have gotten more information since there would not have been the rush to Mirandize so quickly. There is no set time frame but the 'usual' standard is 48 hours is allowed for interrogation before Miranda rights are required. The high-profile political statements interfered with the basic police work.

I see two major problems with making rights conditional. One, these rights allow someone who is falsely accused to fight the accusation. A system of government where a mere accusation leads to punishment, including death, is an arbitrarily powerful one. Two, the government gets to define which persons’ rights may be ignored. If the government does not need to abide by the constitution if it accuses someone of terrorism, and it gets to define terrorism, then there is nothing to stop it from labeling anyone a terrorist and acting outside the constitution. Thus, rights become meaningless.

This is my greatest fear in regards to this and should be everyone else's too.

The problem with making rights conditional is that it removes the logic of having rights in the first place. The point is that there are certain things the government cannot do or cannot do without substantial burden, specifically in criminal cases (this also means the people who wrote the documents knew full well they would be used in the favor of some unsavory things or people).

 

I see two major problems with making rights conditional. One, these rights allow someone who is falsely accused to fight the accusation. A system of government where a mere accusation leads to punishment, including death, is an arbitrarily powerful one. Two, the government gets to define which persons’ rights may be ignored. If the government does not need to abide by the constitution if it accuses someone of terrorism, and it gets to define terrorism, then there is nothing to stop it from labeling anyone a terrorist and acting outside the constitution. Thus, rights become meaningless.

 

Not too long ago, many on this forum were outraged that some right-wing groups and positions were labeled “extremist” on a DHS report. Now many are saying so long as the government assigns a label to a person or group it may take actions against them without restriction. Ponder the ramifications of that.

 

Spoken like a boss.