Just saw on foxnews.com that 75% of their viewers (non-scientific poll) think the bomber should NOT be afforded his rights as a US citizen, but rather tried as an enemy combatant.

It blows my mind that people who claim to be all about individual rights vs. invasive government feel this way. Is it just the difference between "my" rights (defend those tooth and nail) and "your" rights?

And while on the point -- how can we be making slippery slope arguments about gun control ("I support background checks, but am against them because it's a slippery slope) when at the same time NOT making slippery slope arguments about trying American citizens outside the normal justice system?

I'm pretty sure 75% of Americans don't know the first thing of history including Constitutional history so you are probably exactly right about the "my rights" v. "your rights" comment.

IR----I agree with you that since the f.uckwad is a citizen that he should be afforded the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I am a firm believer in "slippery slopes" and think that if they ship him off to Gitmo that sets a very bad precedent.

Try him as a citizen, find him guilty. It is really that simple.

Our justice system is far from perfect but it should surely be good enough to do the job here. The idea of taking citizenship away from American CITIZENS just to try them for certain crimes scares me far more than any terrorist.

I wish they had read him his Miranda rights regardless if they try him as a citizen or an enemy combatant. I do believe he should be tried as a citizen.
I don't want anything to be in doubt or up for debate when he gets his day in court.

If you are a citizen you should be treated as a citizen. The govern should never be allowed to decide if you have those rights or not. No matter the crime.....over seas or on our shores.


Should it move faster to obtain justice and not have twenty years of appeals......that is another topic. He should get his day in court and his day with the needle/chair/rope/firing line/take your pick.

i never understood why they "have" to read those stupid rights... ive even got friends that have fought cases by saying they never had their rights read, they still lost, but they tried.... if you get arrested for being a dumbass nutcase, you should lose all rights, your rights are what you bring to the cell, meaning your right to still be alive....

also, im not a big fan, actually im not a fan at all of how we treat people like this AFTER they get convicted... this dude will be under protection for the rest of his life, and i dont agree with that... save some money, and put him in general pop, that answer gets met with "no you cant do that, they would kill him"....


uhhhhhhh, your point?

Missile strikes against US citizens actively engaged in war on foreign soil isn't slippery at all in my book.

Suspending or disregarding the rights of US citizens in the USA IS a slippery slope.imo

Citizen. The shocking thing is that you are watching Fox News.

he is redhook you dunce.

lol...

ive never been arrested, so i dont really understand the whole Miranda situation...

i was just saying, if you kill innocent people in ways like this asshole, you should lose all rights... citizen or not... the only right you should have, is the right to breathe, if they let you.... otherwise your just a rabbit in a shark tank....

You do lose your rights...by being convicted.

It's called "due process"...it's in the Constitution.

You should read it.

Fish on...

Todd

lol

I banned Redhook, He isnt on the site anymore............

I'm still waiting for IR's explanation for why he was watching FOX news.

Meanwhile, the kid is a US citizen and should be tried in court and not labeled an enemy combatant.

Was it Todd who was asking if US schools teach civics any more? Apparently they don't.

Well, Andy & Steve I wasn't WATCHING FoxNews, my post used the word 'saw' but I included the '.com' suffix to try to be clear I was browsing (fail by me). The "what do you think" link was on the front, I voted and was horrified to see the results.

FWIW I think it's important to read dissenting/divergent opinions -- if only to try to be able to bridge gaps. Admittedly this has gotten quite difficult in our current environment.

I really need to get my eyes checked I could have sworn I just read a post of a Liberal telling someone to read the constitution.

'tis there, a convicted felon has no rights....er, unless you're talking to the ACLU.

I believe that most still do but the kids don't give 2 $hits....