There goes the 5th Amendment...

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by AlmostStock

I don't know anyone who's for repealing the 2nd amendment. But I do know a lot of NRA members (and others) who are against ANY gun laws (even ones prohibiting the sale of armor piercing cyanide tip assault weapons/ammo at gun shows without background checks) because they think it "threatens" their favorite amendment. Yet these same people somehow have no problem accepting that holding "suspects" indefinitely without charge does not threaten the 5th.

Let me say this slowly... t h e p e o p l e w h o a r e s c r e a m i n g a b o u t t h e 5 t h b e i n g t r a s h e d a r e t y p i c a l l y t h e s a m e p e o p l e w h o w a n t t h e 2 n d r e p e a l e d.

Let me spell it out to you: the LIBERALS.

No, I have no problem accepting that holding "enemy combatants" indefinitely without charge does not threaten the 5th.

What I decide to buy at gun shows is nobody's business, not the government's and most certainly not yours.

Originally Posted by AlmostStock

Why is it ok to unconditionally defend one amendment and trash another?

AHHH!!! But I asked that question first. (well, sort of)

To answer your question, again...

Repealing the 2nd (past the "threatening phase" which is a FACT and will affect the individual right of MILLIONS of US citizens)

is different from

"Raping" the 5th (as some liberals see this one of a HANDFUL of cases involving individuals believed to be enemies of the Constitution and the United States) which is an exaggeration, the "raping" part, to say the least.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by ct91rs

Almost seems a bit hypocritical...

It IS hypocritical. When are these liberals ever going to stop being such hypocrites? Jeeesshhh...

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Franko914

The "if" you talk about and others like it are just examples of exaggerations that you start to believe is actually happening which gets you riled up even more. The 5th ain't getting raped, no, not a bit.

Here, I'll use my "copy/pasting skills", to post this once again:

Originally Posted by The American Constitution

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

What you are referring to, is an act borne out of anger, and paranoia. This is what you want. Since when has a true conservative agreed to more power to government?

Also, you call me a fucking liberal one more time, I'll ban you indefinitely.

Upon investigation, I feel that you, and your hate-filled ways work against what we are for in this forum. Don't you dare fucking bitch.

PS: If you think this is all about the welfare of some scumbag, and not about something bigger, you ARE slow.

PPS: I've served in our country's military, and served to protect my state, working as an Officer - I think I've earned the right to have an opinion, without being labeled by some idiot like you.

[2strokebloke]

I wonder when the government will send us all out to work in the fields, and shoot all suspected political dissidents in the back of the head?
If this holds up, we'll be communists in 20 years for sure.

It IS hypocritical. When are these liberals ever going to stop being such hypocrites?

Yeah, it's good thing everybody thinks completely in BLACK AND WHITE when it comes to political issues. I mean it'd be totally illogical to think that people might support both the 5th and 2nd ammendments (or all of them for that matter).

[BNaylor]

Part of the article was rather amusing. Having Janet Reno on the flip side of the argument and debate against the Patriot Act and in support of Padilla and alleged contitutional rights violations is the pot calling the kettle black.

She was Clinton's Attorney General when the Branch Davidians went up in smoke in Waco. The Koresh people might have been crazy, paranoid, and religious fanatics but they were U.S. ctizens too. They were not terrorists that trained with Al-Queda.

Here's a question, would you want Padilla living in your neighborhood?

[YogsVR4]

That was a bad decision. Let me rephrase that; a very bad decision. I don't know all the particulars, but a US citizen (regardless of how much of a scum bag they are) should be charged, tried and convicted before being locked up indefinately.

The only other time we hear of people locked up indefinately (rarly) can be for contempt.


Its another example of the courts getting out of hand. Every administration to push the limits of the law and I expect the courts to stand strong on those limits. Much like the imminent domain decision, this one is unfathomable.

[fredjacksonsan]

If Padilla had been on the battlefields of Afghanistan, then the 5th does not apply:

Originally Posted by [b

The American Constitution[/b]]...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...

However by strict interpretation of the laws as put forth in this thread, Padilla is entitled to be charged before a grand jury and prosecuted for the crime, since he was picked up in the states and is a US citizen.

Putting someone in prison indefinitely smacks of Gulag or some old dungeon from the middle ages.

This will eventually reach the Supreme Court, then those wise individuals will make the decision if it is legal to hold him or not. If so, he will continue to be held. If not, they will either try him or release him.

For my personal opinion, I'm glad he's arrested. I certainly don't want someone who has trained with Al Qaeda running around free.

[BNaylor]

Our country has a history of doing questionable things, specifically related to civil rights, when it comes to time of war. Where were all the bleeding hearts when the Japanese Americans were locked up in internment camps from 1942 to 1946. The only things they were guilty of is having a different skin color and being of Japanese origin.

BTW - They were never charged with a real crime or convicted. Padilla should consider himself lucky.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Also, you call me a fucking liberal one more time, I'll ban you indefinitely.

What if I call you a liberal? Will you still ban him?

I find it somewhat amusing that there is all this talk of having guns to defend yourselves and your families in the US. There is this old time notion in the US of Americans being bold and brave, tough and fearless etc, yet you are all scared to death of an old Arab man who lived in a cave, and is by all accounts dead. You are terrified of someone breaking into your home to the point where you feel you need to keep loaded and unlocked firearms close by hand, where even your children could find them.

I lived in Lakewood, which is a neighbourhood in southern Tacoma(Seattle). It was a rough part of town, there were a few shootings in my neighbourhood while I was down there. The apartment complex I lived in was an especially rough, low income complex, with not especially secure doors. I never once felt that I should have a gun to defend myself, I felt quite confident that a chair near the bed would be enough to incapacitate any intruders. In fact, I once mused that the most likely scenario for such an "intruder" would have been a drunk roommate getting home from the bar.

Whatever happened to the "cowboy" Americans who would have considered this current attitude to be disgraceful? Go ask your elderly parents about it.

Also, to Franko914, consider this. Your beloved republican party is currently the party passing all of these antigun laws. The Bush administration took up where Clinton's left off in gun bans. This is the same party that has now taken the power to strip American citizens of their rights and hold them indefinitely by claiming them to be terrorists, without providing any evidence to support these allegations.

The very government which is whittling away at the second ammendment is the same government that is now imprisoning American citizens indefinitely without any legal process. Say things starting getting worse in the US, who do you think they're going to start seeing as a threat? Maybe the guys who are armed to the teeth and are determined to fight the gov't tooth and nail when it comes to infringing upon their rights and freedoms? How would you like to be considered a terrorist Franko? It just might happen!

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

<snip>This is what you want. Since when has a true conservative agreed to more power to government?

Difficult times require difficult measures. Some measures will surely prove to be the wrong (e.g., treatment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2). Other measure have proven to be right (e.g., use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). etc., etc., etc.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Also, you call me a fucking liberal one more time, I'll ban you indefinitely.

Oh give me a break. Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Upon investigation, I feel that you, and your hate-filled ways work against what we are for in this forum. Don't you dare fucking bitch.

Yeah, right. You, too.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

PS: If you think this is all about the welfare of some scumbag, and not about something bigger, you ARE slow.

I'll worry about the bigger later. Right now, I want to make sure my family and I LIVE to see what happens later. You ARE dense.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

PPS: I've served in our country's military, and served to protect my state, working as an Officer - I think I've earned the right to have an opinion, without being labeled by some idiot like you.

Thank you for your service. Hard not to label someone like you.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by Cbass

What if I call you a liberal? Will you still ban him?

No, you have to call him a "fucking liberal..."

Originally Posted by Cbass

Also, to Franko914, consider this. Your beloved republican party is currently the party passing all of these antigun laws. The Bush administration took up where Clinton's left off in gun bans.

(Clinton Administration Solicitor General) Seth Williams stated, "There is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun."

(Bush Administration US Attorney General) John Ashcroft directed the US Justice Department in a memo on Dec. 17, 2004 to advise its US attorneys that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right, stating, "The Second Amendment secures a personal right invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to persons serving in organized militia units."

Originally Posted by Cbass

The very government which is whittling away at the second ammendment is the same government that is now imprisoning American citizens indefinitely without any legal process.

Ahhh, you are describing the Clinton administration in the first part of your statement. The second part of your statement applies to individuals who are suspected of and have shown to be conducting terrorist activities. The Federal court that issued the ruling agreed.

Originally Posted by Cbass

Say things starting getting worse in the US, who do you think they're going to start seeing as a threat? Maybe the guys who are armed to the teeth and are determined to fight the gov't tooth and nail when it comes to infringing upon their rights and freedoms? How would you like to be considered a terrorist Franko? It just might happen!

BIG stretch!!! Maybe this, what if that...

I, with other armed citizens, would be fighting on the same side/alongside the federal/state/local gov'ts. Remember the LA riots? The police and National Guards could not be everywhere at the same time. Armed citizens took up their weapons and assisted local police forces in defending lives and property. You see, that's not a stretch. Not a maybe, not a what if. 'Tis a fact.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

That was a bad decision. Let me rephrase that; a very bad decision. I don't know all the particulars, but a US citizen (regardless of how much of a scum bag they are) should be charged, tried and convicted before being locked up indefinately.

Bad decision? Yes.

Incorrect decision? No.

If given a choice between making a bad decision and not making a decision at all that would lead to mayhem and murder, the choice is clear -- make the bad decision now and deal with it later.

When courts make decisions regarding individual's rights, it almost always invariably involves determination of whose rights are really being trampled. If an individual engages in an activity that, in itself, does not directly infringe on others' rights but encourages or influences others to do so, or will eventually lead to infringement on others' rights, that individual's rights may be revoked/suspended or simply placed under less priority/importance for the good of others. In this case, the individual was taken off the streets. The Federal Court agreed.

The prosecutor never said that charges were not going to be leveled -- they will be, eventually.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Franko914

Bad decision? Yes.

Incorrect decision? No.

If given a choice between making a bad decision and not making a decision at all that would lead to mayhem and murder, the choice is clear -- make the bad decision now and deal with it later.

When courts make decisions regarding individual's rights, it almost always invariably involves determination of whose rights are really being trampled. If an individual engages in an activity that, in itself, does not directly infringe on others' rights but encourages or influences others to do so, or will eventually lead to infringement on others' rights, that individual's rights may be revoked/suspended or simply placed under less priority/importance for the good of others. In this case, the individual was taken off the streets. The Federal Court agreed.

The prosecutor never said that charges were not going to be leveled -- they will be, eventually.

The key thing is the eventually part. I realize that 'timely mannor' is still a vague time frame, but eventually seems even more so. Charges should be brought to bear and the trial should get underway. No citizen should be incarcerated without being charged.

If the guy (and I'm sure he is) is the scumbag that it appears to be, then why the hell is it taking so long to bring the charges to bear? If they needed more time to find the evidence then they also need the time to be sure that the guy is who they think he is.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

That was a bad decision. Let me rephrase that; a very bad decision. I don't know all the particulars, but a US citizen (regardless of how much of a scum bag they are) should be charged, tried and convicted before being locked up indefinately.

The only other time we hear of people locked up indefinately (rarly) can be for contempt.


Its another example of the courts getting out of hand. Every administration to push the limits of the law and I expect the courts to stand strong on those limits. Much like the imminent domain decision, this one is unfathomable.

Tell it like it is. I couldn't agree more with you Yogs.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Bush Administration US Attorney General) John Ashcroft directed the US Justice Department in a memo on Dec. 17, 2004 to advise its US attorneys that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right, stating, "The Second Amendment secures a personal right invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to persons serving in organized militia units."

First, if you want to continue this debate go here.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=463444

Second, the entire point of the 4th and 5th ammendments are to ensure just due process for US citizens. If you're suspected of being a murderer, the police can't hold you indefinitely, they have a set time period in which they can hold you under suspicion before having to charge or release you, which is 24 hours. This particular case is relevant because there have been no charges laid, or for that matter any evidence put forth to validate claims of terrorism. I hear everyone here bleating "well if he's trained with al qaeda, well if he's really that bad, he deserves it". The real human rights issue here is that it's an accusation which has yet to be substantiated, or even legally leveled against the accused. The only possible reason I can imagine for this is that they don't have the evidence necessary to convict, or even indict him. The day we give the government the power to unilaterally label someone a terrorist and imprison them indefinitely without trial or tribunal is the day we give up our basic liberties. If they can do it to him they can do it to me, or you. However unlikely it may be, it's something that can't be allowed to happen. Regardless of your political affiliations, your stance on human rights and your feelings on terrorists, we're talking about the basic right of an American citizen to due process. Once the precendent is set with Jose, it applies to any and all American citizens.

If this had happened in Canada, the government would have been thrown out of office for it. In all seriousness the opposition would force a vote of no confidence, the gov't would fall and there would be an election.