tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post6539399873705868705..comments2024-03-28T19:58:31.110-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: Unmasking the 'Police State'Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-33751790242665778222012-03-11T20:43:31.041-05:002012-03-11T20:43:31.041-05:00It's okay, obumble,the demos, and their friend...It's okay, obumble,the demos, and their friends in the media will soon be telling us that Bush did something similar...<br />emdflAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-17638215888980934412012-03-11T16:54:38.997-05:002012-03-11T16:54:38.997-05:00And so far, no one has brought up the Grand Jury i...And so far, no one has brought up the Grand Jury issue, which hits closest to home. Grand Juries are lethal - you cannot refuse to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination, or you go to jail. You cannot bring in counsel. You either incriminate yourself, or snitch off one of your partners. <br />The same people who are yammering about fair trials are the same people who love to sit on them. There is no Constitutional fairness in Grand Juries. Thus, if invited by the GJ, faced with no other options, I'd like to meet Mr. Schofield during my lunch break. There is no difference.trailbeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06830065132795330618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-59254685213757228732012-03-11T16:52:54.513-05:002012-03-11T16:52:54.513-05:00That's a helluva slippery slope they're se...That's a helluva slippery slope they're setting up there. Give them time to fudge definitions here and there, and they'll be able to kill anyone anytime they want.<br />I don't like it.BobGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405172215849046373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-79548637519291105672012-03-11T12:04:02.864-05:002012-03-11T12:04:02.864-05:00I would respectfully suggest that there is a diffe...I would respectfully suggest that there is a difference between executing somebody for treason and killing them as an act of ongoing war. Remember, the original quote is "not feasible", not "not practical". The statement is that citizens who choose to join forces at war with the United States are not entitled to be treated with kid gloves while still pointing weapons at representatives of the United States. We aren't going to pass up a chance to do an injury to the enemy simply because doing so involves shooting a citizen instead of a stranger. <br /><br />People who take up arms against the United States are entitled to be treated as enemy combatants. And we are entitled to so treat them. If they surrender, THEN their right to trial becomes an issue.<br /><br />The hypothetical citizen-terrorist is entitled to a trial AFTER HE SURRENDERS. While he is still actively at war with this country, we get to shoot at him, and if we are better shots or shoot first, then perhaps in his next life he'll consider the consequences of his politics a little more thoroughly.C. S. P. Schofieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-89389399776308073342012-03-11T11:22:03.595-05:002012-03-11T11:22:03.595-05:00Peter, you're more generous than I. I've ...Peter, you're more generous than I. I've no respect whatever for those who would toss the Constitution aside in the name of expediency.<br /><br />LittleRed1 is at least more reasonable in asking the question of how we allow a citizen to renounce his citizenship by his actions, rather than merely saying ".gov says he's a bad dude, and that's good enough for me." The implication is that certain actions should be sufficient to demonstrate that one no longer wishes to be a citizen. I suspect that such actions would include levying war against the US, or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. Turns out the Constitution has something to say about that:<br /><br />"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Article III, Section 3.<br /><br />In other words, Al-Awlaki was entitled to a trial, and shouldn't have been convicted without two witnesses or a confession.<br /><br />Yes, the Constitution is inconvenient sometimes. That's the point--freedom means putting the government on a short leash. Freedom isn't safe. It's dangerous; sometimes, nutjobs are going to slip through the cracks and shoot up a grocery, or use a skyscraper for an ultra-short-field landing. Maybe put a bomb in a Ryder truck. But if we throw out our principles, we'll lose a hell of a lot more.davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13579043129470256468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-69613644948788445552012-03-11T11:15:45.869-05:002012-03-11T11:15:45.869-05:00While LittleRed1's comments are good, the Al A...While LittleRed1's comments are good, the Al Awlaki case was pretty unusual. <br /><br />Along that line of reasoning, as they work down the power structure with various targets of opportunity, the question becomes exactly who is a terrorist? If you're reading this blog, you're probably already identified as a potential terrorist: the administration has made no secrets about calling anyone who might disagree with them a potential terrorist. <br /><br />The rule to understanding this sort of thing is to always remember that even if you agree with this administration's views, consider what your worst enemy would do with these same powers. <br /><br />The NDAA says that they can pick up a terrorist in the homeland USA and put them in detention "for the duration of the conflict" which pretty much means forever <b><i>without recourse to a lawyer or court</i></b>. In that case, anyone who is becoming inconvenient can be considered a terrorist and would never be able to demonstrate innocence. <br /><br />So much for innocent until proven guilty.<br /><br />In the case of the first two comments, again, who decides? There is no declared war, so it sure is easy for someone to say, "terrorist!" (echoes of Robespierre's "j'accuse!" - the death sentence for many). <br /><br />I thought <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/" rel="nofollow">Brazil</a> was an interesting movie. I sure didn't expect to be living it.SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-81480573206198051872012-03-11T08:12:03.124-05:002012-03-11T08:12:03.124-05:00Perhaps the first thing we, as a country, need to ...Perhaps the first thing we, as a country, need to do is to refine what one has to do in order to no longer be considered a citizen. Al Awlaki did not walk into the consulate and formally renounce his citizenship, but his words and actions certainly made it clear that he wanted the legal protections of citizenship while working to undermine the country.<br /><br /> So first, we find a way to specify what actions an individual can take that would render his/her citizenship null(note that this would have to be positive actions on the part of the person, in order to keep the legal bar very, very high). Then we decide what legal recourse exists for eliminating that individual if they continue to pose a threat to the country. <br /><br />LittleRed1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-20344363205545195242012-03-11T06:34:34.540-05:002012-03-11T06:34:34.540-05:00With respect, I think both of the previous comment...With respect, I think both of the previous commenters are putting expediency ahead of the foundation of our society - the rule of law. When we serve in a military or law enforcement role in this society, we take an oath to uphold and preserve the Constitution and laws of the United States. How does disregarding that same Constitution equate to living up to our oath?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-9454459515771402602012-03-11T05:36:17.021-05:002012-03-11T05:36:17.021-05:00Al Quaeda membership alone should carry an automat...Al Quaeda membership alone should carry an automatic death penalty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-85094171760119593432012-03-11T03:53:23.144-05:002012-03-11T03:53:23.144-05:00I think the key words here are "whose capture...I think the key words here are "whose capture is not feasible." . So, in our hypothetical situation, we have a U.S. citizen who is A) A senior leader in a group at war with the United States, and B) Not in our jurisdiction, or the Jurisdiction of any State that would assist in his capture.<br /><br />I don't see this as a major change in policy. If you are a citizen, at war with the United States, and somewhere our army can reach, but our police can't, we get to shoot you. Any questions?C. S. P. Schofieldnoreply@blogger.com