Technically, we do this already. The government passes laws that criminalize certain behaviors, and violations of those laws typically result in the loss of civil liberties.
Ahmad Khan Rahami Is Arrested in Manhattan and New Jersey Bombings
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Typical. Like wanting to ban guns that look scary. Actually, what it sounds like I'm arguing is that the Constitution is a document for people who don't commit terrorist attacks against their country.
I suppose if he was just an innocent child when he came here that blows Obama's "orphans and widows" logic right out of the water.
I don't care what anybody's name is or what it sounds like as long as they're here to assimilate and not commit terrorist attacks, and not live off of me and my tax dollars. We shouldn't be taking in anybody from countries in the middle east that sponsor terrorism and hate American culture. Derp!
Sure. If you're found to have violated the law and are incarcerated as a result, your civil liberties will obviously be curtailed. But we don't, for instance, assume guilt before litigation and deny the right to fair representation during trial.
He hasn't been tried and found guilty of anything yet. But you argue we should deny him a public defender and fair trial? That we should deny him medical care and allow him to die from police-inflicted wounds, despite never having been found guilty of any crime?
You stated that the Constitution exists to protect people from governmental overreach. That's exactly what I'm arguing, but it sounds like you hold the opposite position.
The Cato institute has studied this extensively. But since some might question that organization, here's a second source.
Link
Of course I'm being snarky, but what difference does it make that the overwhelming majority were U.S. citizens? All you've done is prove that stricter immigration laws/processes could have prevented up to 12 (maybe even up to 20) criminals from being in the U.S. Maybe even more if some of those citizens were actually naturalized.
If we can prevent the crimes of just one criminal (much like preventing the death of even one child from a school shooting), isn't it worth it for the vast majority of Americans to sacrifice a little of their liberties?
Last edited:
This is a very difficult problem to solve, but there is precedent to segregate people groups that we are at war with. I am not advocating that but if they refuse to vet their own we could be forced to. I am a "Southern Baptist" and if every time the news announced a terror attack it was one of my group you can bet I would be looking to cull the nuts. It is time for them to cull their nuts if they don't want the rest of us to help them do it.
There were several news outlets stating yesterday that he had returned to his native country and came back acutely more religious. So I question the "Home Grown" statement in your source.
Food for thought......
Here at Tidefans....apparently (this was before I joined)....there was an insurgence of LSU fans who began creating chaos on the boards. So much so that a decision was made to ban all LSU fans from posting.
Then as time went by the decision was made to let them come back...but on a very tight leash.
The point I'm making is how is it different for our country experiencing an insurgence of those who wish to bring harm to our nation....and why couldn't we enact some kind of moratorium on letting those with questionable motives in? At least until we "get things figured out"?
I realize there's a big difference between Tidefans and the country but the point I'm making is we have a community here and we want to protect the members from those usurpers who wish to bring harm to our community.
It's the same philosophy.
The question is...how do we do it?
Here at Tidefans....apparently (this was before I joined)....there was an insurgence of LSU fans who began creating chaos on the boards. So much so that a decision was made to ban all LSU fans from posting.
Then as time went by the decision was made to let them come back...but on a very tight leash.
The point I'm making is how is it different for our country experiencing an insurgence of those who wish to bring harm to our nation....and why couldn't we enact some kind of moratorium on letting those with questionable motives in? At least until we "get things figured out"?
I realize there's a big difference between Tidefans and the country but the point I'm making is we have a community here and we want to protect the members from those usurpers who wish to bring harm to our community.
It's the same philosophy.
The question is...how do we do it?
Even his old man turned him in but FBI "cleared" him. Really ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/nyregion/ahmad-khan-rahami-suspect.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/nyregion/ahmad-khan-rahami-suspect.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/2...to-afghanistan-pakistan-prior-to-attacks.html
Did he learn that from the "religion of peace"?
Did he learn that from the "religion of peace"?
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-