Do you think that there is a time when a U.S. citizen should loose his Constructional rights? I am thinking of this dofus that bombed the Boston Marathon and people that commit...

tramsey Loc: Texas

I am thinking of this dofus that bombed the Boston Marathon and people that commit terrioristic acts that can kill countless people. Maybe not completely lose them but for the authorities to ask certain specific questions for a short time. Pertinent questions like: is there any one else involved, are there any more bombs placed somewhere other than what has all ready blown up, questions of this type and only for a short time. We are living in a different time and dealing with people that don't want a democracy. People that are interested in one thing; killing infidels, meaning you and me. They do not want to sit down and talk peace or negotiate or anything else. If you do not believe the way they do, they will kill you.
I think it is time for an amendment. What do you think?

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

NO RIGHTS for anyone who commits treason or some terriost act against the citizins of the USA, foregien or domestic, citizen or not.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Robert,
Do you wait until after the trial to strip him of all his Constitutional rights or do you do that as soon as he's accused of it and which Amendments of the Bill of Rights would you strip him of?

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Frank T wrote:

Robert,
Do you wait until after the trial to strip him of all his Constitutional rights or do you do that as soon as he's accused of it and which Amendments of the Bill of Rights would you strip him of?

And exactly what is a "terrorist act"? Just because a bomb was used? Only 3 people died in the Boston bombing. Twenty-six died in Sandy Hook. Does that make Sandy Hook a terrorist attack? Does a ricin attack qualify?

These people aren't terrorists, they're not enemy combatants, they're cold-blooded murderers. If there is a public safety exemption, use it, understanding that nothing said during that time can be used in court. No one's constitutional rights should ever be suspended or eliminated, regardless of the crime committed.

krgatlgm Loc: Las Vegas, Nv

tramsey wrote:

I am thinking of this dofus that bombed the Boston... (show quote)

Simple answer to your question, No! After 34 years as a LEO I came to believe that our system of justice is not perfect, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!

(There are provisions in law for them to question a suspect to insure public safety i.e. Are there any more bombs anywhere?)

tramsey Loc: Texas

tschmath wrote:

And exactly what is a "terrorist act"? ... (show quote)

You're using definitive words like: no one and ever, regardless. It seems to me that when ever I used definitive words in my opinion it invariably comes back to haunt me. I don't know what defines a terrorist attack. I am saying that when the attack is pronounced a terrorist attack the perpetrators should loose certain rights for a short period of time. So the authorities that can be certain that the country is safe and that other people are also safe. There would also be questions that they are not allowed to ask. These rights would be reinstated after the time has expired. We are not going to find out any information that we need from these people if we keep trying to hold their hand and negotiating with them. They are a different breed of cats

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

tschmath wrote:

And exactly what is a "terrorist act"? ... (show quote)

A terrorist is someone that induces fear in others to the extent that it causes those people to change the way they do things to spare their lives. It doesn't have to involve actually harming anyone, but it's most effective.

tramsey Loc: Texas

krgatlgm wrote:

Simple answer to your question, No! After 34 years as a LEO I came to believe that our system of justice is not perfect, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!

(There are provisions in law for them to question a suspect to insure public safety i.e. Are there any more bombs anywhere?)

These provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens. As it stands now if a U.S. citizen has been designated a terrorist, he retains his Constitutional Rights. I don't think they should because they are trying to undermine our way of life.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

tschmath wrote:

And exactly what is a "terrorist act"? ... (show quote)

Wow! Really?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

tramsey wrote:

I am thinking of this dofus that bombed the Boston... (show quote)

Here is my response on another thread about the same topic...

Our rights should never be suspended under any circumstances, they are human rights codified into our constitution and therefore our body of laws, our government does not get to decide under which circumstances they may become unnecessary or an inconvenience... A second question however may apply as I attempted to outline on the other thread linked below.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-113117-16.html#1949296

krgatlgm Loc: Las Vegas, Nv

tramsey wrote:

These provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens. As it stands now if a U.S. citizen has been designated a terrorist, he retains his Constitutional Rights. I don't think they should because they are trying to undermine our way of life.

What provisions don't apply to citizen's? If a U.S. citizen is outside the country, unless in a U.S. Embassy, has no constitutional rights. The Constitution limits the government in what it can and cannot do and those government restrictions apply to citizens and non-citizens alike as long as they are on U.S. soil.

So if a U.S. citizen, in the U.S. is designated as a terrorist you are advocating that they should lose their rights?? I respectfully disagree with you. Why? Who is the authority that designated him/her a terrorist? Without trial?

krgatlgm Loc: Las Vegas, Nv

tschmath wrote:

And exactly what is a "terrorist act"? ... (show quote)

I actually agree with your last sentence!! :thumbup: :thumbup:

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Why is everybody so eager to amend the Constitution? By no means am I saying that it should be cast in stone without further amendment. The Constitution spells out how amendments can take place, so there was recognition that it was not perfect in all respects for all time. But the process is difficult, and for good reason: to prevent precipitate action.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

RMM wrote:

Why is everybody so eager to amend the Constitution? By no means am I saying that it should be cast in stone without further amendment. The Constitution spells out how amendments can take place, so there was recognition that it was not perfect in all respects for all time. But the process is difficult, and for good reason: to prevent precipitate action.

No doubt this is a good thing. We would be in even deeper doodoo if it was easier to change.

Carl A Loc: Homosassa FL

You are so full of bull shit! only 3 died !! where in the
hell do you come from.