Say Anything Blog

Speaking of phonies, from the NYT:

Rep.William J. Jefferson pleaded innocent to federal corruption charges Friday and vowed to fight to clear his name.

The nine-term Democrat is accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for helping to broker business deals in Africa.

Appearing before Judge T.S. Ellis III at U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Jefferson was arraigned on the 16-count indictment. Trial was set for Jan. 16, after Jefferson waived his right to a speedy trial within 70 days…

The judge ordered removal of shotguns and rifles that Jefferson, a hunter since age 10, said he keeps in his New Orleans home…

On Wednesday, the judge froze Jefferson’s assets, saying that step was needed because the government is seeking forfeiture of any assets that can be traced to the lawmaker’s alleged illegal activities.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I saw the headline about a child raped and the sentence.  My first thought was that it was the SayAnything crowd happy about justice done.  But then I saw your name on it and my kneejerk reaction was it’s just Reality gloating over political crap without regard for the horror of the crime. 
I apologize for my kneejerk reaction and will endeavor to give fair hearing whenever I accidently read what you say again.

Any bets as to whether Klaudt makes it the whole 44 years??

Prison life can be oh, so difficult on those that abuse children.

EXACTLY FlyOnTheWall… leave it to Unrealitybob to prioritize the GOP of the criminal over the seriousness of this heinous assault on these children.
C.Y. you’re right, hopefully it will be very difficult on the inside yet so… very satisfying for us looking on from the outside

EXACTLY FlyOnTheWall… leave it to Unrealitybob to prioritize the GOP of the criminal over the seriousness of this heinous assault on these children.

Of course a right winger would never stoop to such a low if he were a Democrat. LOL!!!!! Gotta love those family value Repubs.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Bob Dylan

Conservatives aren’t “right-wingers”.  Duh.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Why do we waste time with people like this? just put them to death, here were hoping that criminals give this animal what he deserves. What kind of warped system of Justice we have?

Why do we waste time with people like this? just put them to death, here were hoping that criminals give this animal what he deserves.

What?? and deny him a chance to provide some “prison Bubba” a little romance?

Why do we waste time with people like this? just put them to death, here were hoping that criminals give this animal what he deserves. What kind of warped system of Justice we have?

WB-

Normally, I would agree with you on every count.  But working with the court system as I do, there is something very evil and very pernicious afoot—perjury.  The false accusation. 

We saw it in the cases of Tawana Brawley, the Wenatchee child molestation cases and of course, the Duke Lacrosse False Rape Accusation.

I see it in almost every child custody case.  I see it with kids angry with their step parents, kids angry with their parents, kids angry with anyone else.  I see it with females angry with anyone else, and charges like these, even when proven to be complete and utter lies, bear a close resemblance to the permanence of herpes.

I’m not saying that this guy isn’t guilty and if he is, he deserves the worst the State can throw at him.  What I am saying is that the System now has its thumb hard on the scales of justice and it’s very easy to get in trouble and very difficult to get your name cleared.

Forget about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ when it comes to these charges—you’d damn well better have a videotape for every encounter and a busload of nuns to testify in your behalf. 

Otherwise, don’t be surprised to see headlines blaring ‘Wetback found guilty of child molestation’ even if you are innocent and having the sinking sensation of knowing that the justice system in this country really is criminal.

A Liberal Is a Conservative Who Just Got Arrested and a Conservative is a Liberal who’s just been mugged

...for great justice

Move_Zig. Here! Here!

If truly guilty he deserves what he gets; but I too have seen lives destroyed by false accusations and the blind persecution by a few prosecutors and even over-zealous police officers. You are also so right that once accused, even if absolute innocence is established, which is almost non-existent, it is usually just cannot be proven guilty, the people are stained and ruined for life.

This kill them all nonsense does not consider that innocent people can be convicted by an accusation that is hard to refute.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The consistent lie that rbb promulgates is that the sins or crimes of a human being(that are not political in nature, like Jefferson’s bribe-taking) are somehow related to their political service.  They’re not.  What this guy did had nothing whatsoever with his being a Republican; in fact, it’s much more likely for a moral relativist to do such things, and most of them are Dems.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Innocent people have died in prison, there is no perfect system. If the accuser wrongfully and knowingly caused a wrongful death, then hang them as well.

There was a jury that convicted, end of story. Does wrongful imprisonment happen more often than justifiable ones? Should we keep people who commit heinous crimes alive just in case they were innocent?

Is the majority of the people in jail innocent? All this double thinking gets us no where. Charge them with suspicion of until a confident conviction can be laid out then and let capital punishment be the penalty.

WetbacK: Zig was correctly stating that this particular accusation and crime has a higher incidence of wrongful convictions and ruined lives because of the emotions of people and not the evidence. Of course, I am sure you could execute a Jew or two just for beings Jews to satisfy your blood lust.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Apparently not, because if it has happened so frequently people will begin to think it’s just another one of those false stories again. Until it does become that frequent then many innocent people will be charged.

As I said “Charge them with suspicion of until a confident conviction can be laid out then and let capital punishment be the penalty.”

falsifying testimony is also a crime, let those who are guilty pay for this crime as well. Make those cases known as well, hopefully that will deter false accusations.

I am sure you could execute a Jew or two just for beings Jews to satisfy your blood lust.

“JEW” what is a “JEW” ?

I Have no blood lust, I stand for justice. I am for the protection of little children. You may not like where I stand on Homo’s and other things that destroy this country, but I really don’t care what you think of me.

I went to Catechism when I was young, and became very curious in the bible later in years, today I would not trust a priest as far as I could throw them. I admitted here in the past that I became interested in the Identity Religion in which the Aryan Nation teaches.

However I could put up a better argument with them, why I believe they are wrong then you could. And I could put up an even better argument why I believe you (Neiman) are wrong.

If truly guilty he deserves what he gets; but I too have seen lives destroyed by false accusations and the blind persecution by a few prosecutors and even over-zealous police officers.

Janet Reno comes to mind…

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Please note I am not trying to hijack the thread, but false accusations go way back.  Anyone who attended Sunday school can remember how the Pharisees goaded the Romans into crucifying Christ with their false accusations because he represented a threat to their power. 

Indeed, one of the Commandments holds that “thou shalt not bear false witness.” Why was it listed unless it had been a major problem and thus considered a grave sin?

The Salem Witch trials were the result of young girls accusing older women of witchcraft.  I am going out on a limb here and suggesting the accusations were false.  Yet we can see how dire the results of a false accusation can be.

More to the point, those attorneys who often take the defense side of these cases are either very well paid or hardly at all.  Thus the justice the accused can muster depends largely upon how much he can pay (since most of the time, the accused are men).

Further, the laws themselves are skewed.  They are outgrowths of socialist feminazi propaganda, casting aside the due process protections of the Constitution and you will find that your opportunity for a fair hearing, confrontation of your accusers and other means of defending yourself have been emasculated.

This makes these cases all the more problematic.  What happens when the accusations are true?  Juries may now (and rightly so) second-guess each accusation, since these laws have been abused so often, giving the victim another hurdle to cross.

The bottom line is this: our confrontational method of bringing out the truth has been severely damaged by the imposition of feminist/socialist ‘law.’ I don’t have a ready answer for you except for perhaps treating accusations of rape and incest as they had been—like other forms of crime—and letting the Constitution guide Due Process rather than Marxist- inspired Critical Legal Theory.

...for great justice

This makes these cases all the more problematic.  What happens when the accusations are true?  Juries may now (and rightly so) second-guess each accusation, since these laws have been abused so often, giving the victim another hurdle to cross.

Well said, MZ!  In addition, one of the characteristics of “sex crimes” is that they feature a fairly large percentage of false accusations.  Unlike bank robbery or burglary, which very rarely involve false accusation.  Add this to the fact that this sort of crime, no matter what the law says, really involves the assumption of guilt, and you have a real problem.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

No really.. I am not trying to hijack this thread. But do consider your initial thoughts when reading the headline by the original poster, read this article and then think again.

Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with “scary frequency.” As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver’s ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that ”any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes.” According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false.

The media has largely ignored these studies and experts and has instead promoted the notion that only 2% of rape allegations are false. This figure was made famous by feminist Susan Brownmiller in her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Brownmiller was relaying the alleged comments of a New York judge concerning the rate of false rape accusations in a New York City police precinct in 1974.

...for great justice

Further, the laws themselves are skewed.  They are outgrowths of socialist feminazi propaganda, casting aside the due process protections of the Constitution and you will find that your opportunity for a fair hearing, confrontation of your accusers and other means of defending yourself have been emasculated.
This makes these cases all the more problematic.  What happens when the accusations are true?  Juries may now (and rightly so) second-guess each accusation, since these laws have been abused so often, giving the victim another hurdle to cross.
The bottom line is this: our confrontational method of bringing out the truth has been severely damaged by the imposition of feminist/socialist ‘law.’ I don’t have a ready answer for you except for perhaps treating accusations of rape and incest as they had been—like other forms of crime—and letting the Constitution guide Due Process rather than Marxist- inspired Critical Legal Theory.

You act as if there were not false accusations before the 60s.  There were.  It is why capital punishment is not allowed in cases of rape of an adult women. 

The last paragraphs of your rant just veered off into weirdness. You act as if Critical Legal Theory is the leading theory in criminal law and we aren’t using the confrontational method.  This simply isn’t true.

I’m always amazed at the ability of the average Leftist to say so many incorrect things in such a small space.  I suppose all those biblical references to false accusations falls under the aegis of false charges just beginning in the 1960’s?

With regard to Critical Legal Studies, your attempt to separate CLS from its Marxist roots withers under scrutiny.  You need only look at the text at my link describing it.  Then, if you are still not satisfied, Google Critical Legal Studies and Marxism and you will be able to trace back the lineage of the folks that gave rise to radical feminism and the Constitution-defying VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)

Political observers might well be astonished to hear PC feminists appealing to a Constitution that they generally vilify as a “white male document” drafted by dead slave-owners. It was an argument of convenience and part of a well- established campaign to use civil litigation as a weapon for against ‘gender-motivated’ violence. The VAWA was an attempt to strengthened civil procedure as a gender weapon by allowing federal remedies should state ones prove unsatisfactory.

-- Wendy McElroyThe FEMINIST AGENDA

Hiding behind the smokescreen of ‘feminist jurisprudence’ Leftists have constantly attacked the Constitution, both in its founding and by seeking to pass legislation that runs roughshod over it. 

Some of the earmarks of Feminist Jurisprudence are the so-called Rape Shield laws, which strip the accused of their ability to challenge the background of the accuser, as well as to examine much of the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. They also strip the accused of their Constitutional and fundamental right to confront their accusers. 

In yet another insult to our Founding document, Feminazi Jurisprudence strips the accused of his right to Due Process in permitting many actions to take place ex parte (e.g. without Notice and Opportunity to be Heard). 

In layman’s terms, your accuser goes before a judge or magistrate, files a complaint.  You have no idea that she has done this until the cops show up at your front door and seize all your weapons if you are lucky.  They seize all your weapons and arrest you if you are not.  Then, try to disprove a negative.  If you are fortunate enough to stay out of jail, try then to win your Second Amendment rights back.  It isn’t going to happen any time soon.  That’s how it was intended to be and many vindictive females have separated a man and his guns out of spite in just this manner.

My point is that there have always been false accusers, but it was the advent of stealth-Marxist Critical Legal Studies / Feminazi Jurisprudence that the Constitutional due process protections were stripped away from the accused. 

The system as it exists right now is skewed against the accused.

...for great justice

Move_Zig: I realize that this is a huge problem, but under our current system an innocent man can be charged of rape, goto prison where he (if in fact true) will be beaten, possibly to death. Many people over look the fact that he might be innocent and actually will condone the man that beats him.

But where is the guilty conscience here? If it happens that he an innocent man is beaten to death in prison, who’s blood is his hands on? 

I understand your comparison about this witch hunt, and the danger of revealing the truth about the enormous amount of false convictions which would be harmful to actually cases where rape has actually occurred.

The girl who cried wolf routine.

When answering Pilate Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

From the beginning of time as you pointed out, false and hypocritical testimonies have plagued us. It’s just the thought of feeding and clothing this animal who is truly guilty of rape that bothers me.

If the percentage of an innocent conviction was low, I would regrettably admit that it would be far better to put to death a small amount of innocent men, then to let the majority of these animals live another day.

Being that the percentage is as high as you state, I ask that you read my opening lines here again. Then I ask again is your conscience any cleaner? It’s a horrible situation, but pacifism also kills.

Taxing the innocent to keep these GUILTY animals alive is a sin.

-WB

As I initially stated, normally, I would agree with you.  There is something viscerally appealing about a Charles Bronson / Dirty Harry method of instant Karma.

But I am also of the conviction that false accusations of rape and molestation far outstrip any other form of serious perjury.

According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.

Kanin found that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge.

and again here…

In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

The most common reasons the women gave for falsely accusing rape were “spite or revenge,” and to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame

So I wonder about your discussions of feelings of guilt.  My guess is that you did not have the above facts before you and were not aware of actually how hit or miss the Pinata system of blind justice really is.

You might even recall the vast damage wrought to lives of innocent families when the psychobabblers came out with ‘recovered memories’ of child molestation.  It turned out these were hypnotically-induced fantasies imposed by the suggestions of the hypnotists’ controller.  Those sort of claims zoomed in the 1980’s, peaking in about 1994.  Much of the science behind ‘recovered memories’ having since been discredited:

In a 1989 criminal case, the defendant, Paul Ingram, received a 20-year prison sentence after he pled guilty to the sexual and ritual abuse of two of his daughters.[33] The sisters asserted that years earlier they had been repeatedly raped and that at least 25 human babies, some born to them, had been sacrificed in rituals in the Ingram’s back yard.  Police dug up the Ingram’s yard, but failed to locate the burial grounds for the alleged ritual sacrifices.  Medical examination of the daughters failed to yield any evidence of sexual activity or of childbearing in either one.

Yet Paul Ingram, the father of four children, a deputy sheriff, and a member of a born-again Pentecostal church, agreed that if his daughters said he had done these things, it must be true.  Dr. Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist, interviewed Mr. Ingram at length and was able to show how he had been persuaded, by the use of long interrogations using visualization exercises and suggestion, to accept that he must have done the things he couldn’t remember doing.[34] Dr. Ofshe performed an experiment using the same visualization techniques and got Mr. Ingram to confess to an incident that even the accusing daughters agreed had never happened.  Mr. Ingram has since tried without success to withdraw his guilty plea and remains in prison.

I don’t share your belief that keeping the guilty locked up, to include feeding and clothing them, is a sin.  We might revisit what prisoners do while imprisoned, but that is fodder for another discussion.  What I am concerned with are several issues:

1) The weight an accusation of rape or molestation has upon the accused, much less a conviction, particularly if it is, as it seems to be in about 50 percent of the cases, an outright lie;

2) The credence such an accusation or conviction is given by the general lay population, who are unfamiliar with the prevalence of false accusations;

3) The fact that the Constitutional Due Process and ability to defend oneself has been stripped from the accused by Marxist-inspired laws—whose aim is to secure a speedy conviction—NOT to establish the truth.

(19)You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.
(20) Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue…

-- Deuteronomy 16

Struggles of the Exonerated to Rebuild Their Lives

...for great justice

In my opinion the seriousness of being on a jury that is going to determine whether or not a man who is suspected of rape is going to be freed or die, will stop this nonsense.

Since I am not as familiar as you are here, let me ask you:

One is still innocent until one is found guilty, is this due process? When a trial is set and a guilty verdict is reached, has due process ended?

To end I do not think, he’s guilty hang him (Period) I think, if he is Found guilty hang him. Unfortunately I do not think there will be an end to innocent people being wrongfully sentenced or even guilty people being set free.

Anyway, enjoyed the discussion thanks.

One is still innocent until one is found guilty, is this due process? When a trial is set and a guilty verdict is reached, has due process ended?

By my understanding, Due Process, in the full meaning of the term, begins and ends with State Involvement.  The dispatcher takes a 911 call and sends out a cruiser.  A police officer investigates, perhaps beginning with what may be termed a consensual search or questioning.  Based on what his questions elicit, he may determine that he now has probable cause to make an arrest and take the accused into custody, reading the subject his Rights (sometimes.... how do you prove he didn’t).

Ideally, the accused could rest on his rights, demand an attorney and hope that he can make bail without too much delay.  But there are exceptions and new interpretations of Due Process from every court up to the SCOTUS, usually using the Bill of Rights not as a baseline, but as a set of slalom gates.

I could take you through the entire process, right up to seeking a reprieve from the governor, but I think the folks on this push already have a good idea of the framework, as it is supposed to be.

But the fact of the matter is that there are your rights as your learned them in High School and there are your rights as applied.  It’s the cop who is billy clubbing, macing, tazing or cuffing you that you are most concerned with.

That’s the law as applied. THAT is the law that affects you and me.

It boils down to brute force. 

The State has pretty much a monopoly on force and jealously guards it.  It has only been a long uphill struggle to get a sliver of our rights back with respect to Self Defense when Florida first passed Shall-Issue Concealed Carry reform back in 1987.  Even so, what IS an enumerated, fundamental right (Second Amendment) is held in contempt by most every branch of government and we are left with the humiliating requirement of begging the government to issue a license for us to exercise a right.

Government is slipping the chains of the Constitution and instead of being the servant, is claiming itself to be the master.

It is no surprise then that other aspects of the Bill of Rights are equally held in contempt, and for the purposes of this discussion, the Right to a Jury of our peers has been pared back to being almost meaningless.

For example, anyone following the hijinks of prosecutor Sutton in the Compean and Ramos border guard cases see that there was a lot of withholding of exculpatory evidence and denying the jury the fact that some of the start witnesses against the accused were buying their own freedom and perks with their testimony.  The jurors who heard these revelations after the fact were incensed and proclaimed that they would not have convicted the border agents had they known the testimony was bought by the government from a dirty source.

As a defense attorney you will often be forbidden from instructing the jury, at any stage of the game that they have a right and duty to engage in something called jury nullification.  Indeed that is the very purpose of there being a jury, that is, if some Leftard passes a law that smoking in your home or eating a greaseburger is now a capital offense, and the State finds you guilty on all counts, and you even, in fact, admit that you lit up a camel and wolfed down a Big Mac in your kitchen, they feel that the law is stupid, or the punishment exceeds by far the infraction, they can refuse to convict.

There’s more, much more, that shows the government now has its thumb down hard on the scales of justice.  It’s also erratic as hell, leaving many of the true bad guys to get out there and do their dirty deeds again and again.

One is still innocent until one is found guilty, is this due process? When a trial is set and a guilty verdict is reached, has due process ended?

I hope my discussion above is that proper Due Process is the process in reaching a just verdict.  How it is arrived at is the question, not what comes out the tail end.

...I do not think there will be an end to innocent people being wrongfully sentenced or even guilty people being set free.

You said it, and it’s the reason Justice is depicted as being blindfolded and armed with a sword.  It often misses the guilty and thwacks the innocent.

Hope you got a good defense attorney.

...for great justice

Move-Zig,

Couple of questions for you.

Are you concerned about 4th amendment rights?
Should the phone companies be given immunity for violating the rights of their customers?

As a defense attorney you will often be forbidden from instructing the jury, at any stage of the game that they have a right and duty to engage in something called jury nullification.

I actually agree with you that jury nullification should be able to be argued.  But that is ususally considered a leftist position.

For example, anyone following the hijinks of prosecutor Sutton in the Compean and Ramos border guard cases see that there was a lot of withholding of exculpatory evidence and denying the jury the fact that some of the start witnesses against the accused were buying their own freedom and perks with their testimony. 

There are remedies for the withholding of exculpatory evidence, the Brady decision.  But again, this was considered a liberal opinion when given.

I almost think you are turning into a liberal on crime and justice issues.

Move_Zig:

I agree with what you said above, but where not talking about an erroneous law here, where talking about a rape charge, no one is going to say “I think capital punishment is wrong, so I will opt not guilty, to hang this jury fully knowing that this man truly is a rapist.

Especially when most likely the first question asked to gather the jury would be “What are your feeling’s on the death penalty?”

Again I agree with you that our current system is truly flawed and most likely will remain as such. I also agree with the power hunger that you have mentioned.

Very Interesting subject, Thank you for Your responses.

Take Care.

Lest there be any confusion, I am a Constitutionalist.

The Left has no monopoly on Due Process rights, indeed , they only refer to the Constitution when it suits them, otherwise pissing on it as a misogynist rag, put together by a bunch of capitalist, slave-owning, white men.

The political spectrum of today is basically a lie and a smokescreen.  Forget Leftwing and Rightwing, this one-dimensional political spectrum is a socialist construct—a strawman to be easily demonized and knocked down.

It is closer to reality to look at the Rights and Powers embraced by the U.S. Constitution in one corner of a matrix and the usurpations of all those rights and wrongful seizing of power under the title of Statism in the other corner.  Communism, Socialism and Nazism are all kindred demons.  They are all Statist regimes, wherein the State commands subjects and uses the brutal application of force to maintain power.

Juxtapose the Constitution against everything else.  It is a wonderful guide of clarity against all the smoke and mirrors dished out by all others.  And it is the Constitution which contains the Bill of Rights—essentially forbidding the government to intrude upon certain rights (property, speech, arms, freedom, etc.)

So to answer your questions, I am very concerned that we, as citizens, be afforded all the rights enumerated in the Constitution and that the government stay within its limited domain.  That means there should be punishments meted out to those who hold positions of special trust and confidence (judges, police, legislators, etc...) for violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

This includes the violation of rights by proxy: in the case you suggested, the Phone Company, when it is acting as an agent for the State, that it also be subject to the limitations and punishments for the exceeding those limitations against violating citizens’ rights.

With regard to ‘liberal’ or ‘leftist’ positions: they use the Constitution to their own ends—pushing for homosexual access to little boys, homosexual perversion in public rest rooms, destroying the rights of others to enjoy Christmas and references to Christianity, while ignoring or destroying our Second Amendment rights and compromising the National Defense.

The Left is no friend to freedom and Liberals know nothing of Liberty.

...for great justice

Should the phone companies be given immunity for violating the rights of their customers?

What “rights” do terrorists from other countries have in the US, according to you?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

What “rights” do terrorists from other countries have in the US, according to you?

Dumbass, the phone companies violated the rights of their customers by giving the government information about their customers without a warrant.  That is why I use Qwest.  They were the only company that had decent enough lawyers to tell the government to go back and get a warrant. 

It’s not the terrorist who had their rights violated, it is the customers.

It’s not the terrorist who had their rights violated, it is the customers.

Right. The terrorists have the right, according to you, to conspire with people in this country to aid in its destruction and to murder its citizens.  How sad.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Right. The terrorists have the right, according to you, to conspire with people in this country to aid in its destruction and to murder its citizens.  How sad.

Please never complain you support the constitution again, because you don’t.  As long as you are scared enough you will give up all your rights. 

It’s called the fourth amendment, read it sometime.

It’s called the fourth amendment, read it sometime.

It applies to citizens, not traitors who conspire with foreign terrorists.  What part of that don’t you understand?  Perhaps the “citizens” on the other end should also be shot as traitors.  Would that make you happier?  OK with me; I think we are too soft on traitors.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

It applies to citizens, not traitors who conspire with foreign terrorists.

Dumbass, it applies to people, not citizens.  Noncitizens have the same rights under the fourth amendment when they are under US jurisdiction.  What the phone companies gave up was not just records dealing with foreign terrorist, but all e-mails for the data mining operation.  They had no right to do that, because they do not own the e-mails

The Constitution protects the rights of American citizens, not foreign nationals and certainly not enemy combatants. 

As I alluded to, the Left will contort the Constitution into it being a suicide pact instead of an enumeration of rights and governmental powers.

If, per chance, some of the terrorists have gained entry to the US and gained citizenship then the DHS / INS has failed utterly in its mission (does that come as any surprise?) and it is very likely that the naturalized foreign combatant lied in their applications, concealing connection with terrorist organizations and lying when swearing to forsake all other loyalties to take up the mantel of US citizen.
They can quickly be stripped of US citizenship, as has happened many times with 80-year old former SS camp guards.

The government has a right and indeed a duty to control the entry and sojourn of foreign nationals on its soil, as well as for providing for the common defense.

Do those phrases sound familiar?  They should, both from the Constitution itself and from properly-decided Supreme Court decisions.

To conflate the rights of enemy terrorists with the rights of an accused American citizen at a time of war is treason, in that it is providing aid and comfort to the enemy at a time of war.

Tough cases make bad law, and the external / now internal threat has been seized by power grabbers in government to accumulate more Unconstitutional powers to themselves.  While I fully understand the need for the US to defend itself, like Dirty Harry versus the Magnum Force, you have to do that within the confines of the Constitution.

To do that, you need to treat America’s enemies like enemies and traitors like traitors, and more importantly, treat Americans as American citizens.

This may come as a shock to you, but waterboarding is a-okay when it comes to terrorists.  When it comes to the law of war, these guys gave up all their protections under the Geneva Convention when they doffed the uniform of the soldier and hid behind the civilian popular to commit terrorist acts. 

Historically, unconventional warriors, terrorist, anarchist, whatever you want to call them asked for nor received any mercy or quarter.  For them, those who no longer fought under a Letter of Marquis, or under the open flag of an enemy nation and in their recognizable uniform could only expect the gallows or a bayonet to the gut.

A Leftist will never understand where I can make bright-line distinctions because they have lost their own bright line.  They have no loyalty to the USA or to freedom, hence their irretrievable confusion.  They will be left with the impression that I am speaking in contradictory terms, failing to see the difference between an American and their enemy.

Constitutionally, terrorists can be squeezed like lemons and then fed to pigs.

God help me, I would do it in a heartbeat.

...for great justice

The Constitution protects the rights of American citizens, not foreign nationals and certainly not enemy combatants.

Please stop calling yourself a Constitutionalist, because you just showed that you are not.  The Bill of Rights is about protecting people from the government, not just citizens.  If a foreign national lives here the government does not have a right to search his home.  If an illegal immigrant is charged with a crime, the government still owes him due process with the criminal charge before deporting him.  We can’t use cruel and unusual punishment against anybody, not just citizens.

You are not a Constitutionalist, you are simply a conservative.

MZ: Well said.  I always want to spit when lefties try to act like authorities on our Constitution, while wanting to replace it with Marxist ideology.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

R108,

Thanks.  I don’t expect Leftists to comprehend these distinctions.  They are completely lost in this regard. 

Good thing I don’t need the approval of enemies of the state to stake my claim as Constitutionalist.

...for great justice

Good thing I don’t need the approval of enemies of the state to stake my claim as Constitutionalist.

Amen.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Good thing I don’t need the approval of enemies of the state to stake my claim as Constitutionalist.

You don’t even understand the plain words of the Constitution. 

I pity you and Robert108.  Our government has made you so afraid of the bogeyman of terrorist that you are willing to give up your rights recognized by the Constitution.  The only problem is that you are also willing to give up my rights and I will oppose that.

The only problem is that you are also
willing to give up my rights and I will oppose that.

You have the right to remain silent…

From someone who believes in the global warming hypothesis, but denies the reality of world terrorism; lefties crack me up.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Wow has this thread changed.

The idea that I have nothing to hide, so therefore I have nothing to fear, scares me when I think of the little steps that our country has taken that is questionable.

Now I know THIS means nothing and is outdated, but hell it does scare me, it may mean nothing, but it is an eye opener.

We may have a different opinion here, on who the “Traitors” are, but what concerns me is the likelihood of a phony operation that our government is pursuing, like Rudy’s National ID card because of “Illegals”.

I do not trust this Government in it’s current state at all. I don’t think it’s a good idea to blindly follow anything without feeling at peace with one’s decision.

Fight on about the Constitution, and who you think is right, but I also agree that Traitors and Animals have no Constitutional rights, thought my Traitor might differ from yours.

Invest in rope, because there’s allot of Traitors to hang.