Andy9o8

And the conservative media is pro-gun. What a shocker. Did FoxNews cover the gun rights protest? The Wall Street journal? The Washington Times? Newsmax? Boston Herald? National Review? Drudge Report? Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Pat Buchanan? Anyone in the conservative media? If the answer is yes, then read their stories. If no, then demand an answer to "why not?" from them.

There are some Americans who died carrying the AR for our freedom. But not all of them. The warriors who died carrying the AR in Vietnam and Iraq did not die for any Americans' freedom; they were cannon fodder for political agendas and the military-industrial complex. Brave as they were, their deaths were nothing more than a tragic waste.

Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales. He's proposing hiring millions of people to supervise sales of private guns and busting people for selling a gun to a felon. The only way to find out if he's a felon is to complete the background check otherwise you'd might end up a felon yourself if you sell to a felon. And of course since we have a criminal justice industry, the more felons the better for LEO job security. More laws, rules=more perps just what they want. Well at least you're not playing the race card this time. Of course, you'd just call it the "ghetto card". No race reference intended, no sirree. Anyhow, that's progress. For you.

Yes. I would argue that LEOs have the option to either use immediate deadly force, on sight and without warning, under war-combat rules of engagement, or to capture them. If they're captured, they must be treated according to the Geneva Convention. Since they're uniformed troops, I'm pretty sure (I haven't looked it up) that the Geneva Convention prohibits them from being prosecuted under civilian criminal law. But they may be detained, humanely, for the duration of hostilities. In my professional opinion, any trial and/or sentencing in absentia under American law is unconstitutional. Some prosecutors, lawyers and judges would probably disagree with me. In the face of such disagreement, I would stand by my position.

Heh. Look at post #36. Of course, you're not responsible for what's in it, but it does lend a certain...context.

Are you sure? I frankly wonder how many N. Koreans have the computers or TV to see it. HERE is a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula taken at night. As you can see, South is all lit up, while North is virtually entirely dark. What does that suggest to you?

Gee, you can start a cute little cyber-enemies list. And hey, what about TK? If ever there was a seditious enemy of the state, there's one.

US citizens are fair game you say. OK, I hear you are visiting AQ websites and that means you are siding with the enemy right here in the US. Watch your back. You guys having never lived in a communist controlled area or country don't have a clue what an authoritative power can do, make up or invent. Thats what is scary. Not all repressive, authoritarian police states are Commie. That said, the Commies did hone it to a fine art.

Sounds pretty forked up.

Great question. Sounds like a law school question. Lemme think about it. In the meantime, maybe some of the other asshole lawyers in here will weigh in.

Actually, I don't think the President is fluent in Homeboy.

That's not what I said; and I did begin my first post noting that it's a grea area. I didn't say such action was necessarily wrong in all instances. I said that the overall legal justification was deficient because the factual triggers were too vague: That's not good enough for me. What would be good enough for me? Probably a scenario that would clearly cross out of the grey area and solidly into the area of "rules of engagement in war". In my mind, that would mean, at the very least, engaged in an active plot to attack the US.

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges. You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly. Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud, not putting anything out as well-thought out. However, I still think I prefer some sort of judicial review as opposed to the none that is in the act now. I do, too, when it's bona fide. But when it's a facade to veil a breach of the rule of law, I react... as I have. The only judicial analog I can think of under the American system of law are when search warrants and arrest warrants are issued by judges with only the police or prosecutors present. And usually, they're just pro-forma rubber stamps. But there, the worst that could happen would be a wrongful arrest or search. That's a FAR CRY from a DEATH WARRANT issued secretly, unilaterally and otherwise without further due process, even if by a judge. IMPO, any American judge that would do such a thing should be impeached from office and disbarred. Andy, I agree with you on this. I do wonder if there is any "in absentia" process you could imagine, such as an actual trial with real representation for the defense, that would satisfy the need for due process? Or do we really just have a choice between "suck it up" or declaring war on yet another country when a terrorist (or allegedly terrorist) organization sets up shop in a place where the local government is unwilling or unable to apprehend them? Don I am always, always, always opposed to criminal trials in absentia, for any reason; and I've heard all the argumenst in favor of them, in limited circumstances, before. To my mind, that is utterly contrary to my view of legitimate due process under a valid system governed by the rule of law. Absolutist, admittedly, but there it is.

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges. You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly. Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud, not putting anything out as well-thought out. However, I still think I prefer some sort of judicial review as opposed to the none that is in the act now. I do, too, when it's bona fide. But when it's a facade to veil a breach of the rule of law, I react... as I have. The only judicial analog I can think of under the American system of law are when search warrants and arrest warrants are issued by judges with only the police or prosecutors present. And usually, they're just pro-forma rubber stamps. But there, the worst that could happen would be a wrongful arrest or search. That's a FAR CRY from a DEATH WARRANT issued secretly, unilaterally and otherwise without further due process, even if by a judge. IMPO, any American judge that would do such a thing should be impeached from office and disbarred.

Generally, yes, or at least pretty often. (That's because facts already proven in a criminal trial are generally pre-deemed as conscusively established at a subsequent civil trial, due to the tougher standard of proof in criminal cases.)

defendants can be sued civilly and prosecuted criminally for the same infraction. happens all the time.

Come on, that's dumb. You're not even trying.

the fbi had the due process yesterday, he was the guy in the bunker that took the kid. end of story. no need for a court to say he wasn't in his right mind, he killed a bus driver and took a kid. had there been another guy there, maybe, just maybe, there would have been a need for a trial, but in this case, it was the right thing to do. same thing should be done for drunk drivers who kill someone. when the cops pull him out of the car, determine he was driving, and determine he was drunk, they should take him to the road and execute him. after about 6 months of this, the problem would fix itself. the media and hollywood is to blame for the violence that permeates society today. they never show the consequences, only actions. like a fight scene where they are kicked and hit with anything for minutes and never show a mark. kids are raised with no notion of consequences, and people wonder why it's ok in some kids head to shoot someone. There are a couple of reasonable counter-points to his proposition. Those aren't any of them.

Of course, that's the whole point with Constitutional protections in the US, and analogous legal protections (of which there are many) in countries with similar legal systems: that protection of civil rights and liberties are weak and lukewarm when they only protect the popular in society; the true test is how well they protect the rights and liberties of those we find obnoxious, unpopular and repugnant.

Open question to anybody who cares to venture an answer: what would constitute "due process"? Imagine, for example, a US citizen who is known (based on solid intelligence) to be 1) training agents to carry out a biological warfare attack on the US, 2) is operating a facility to provide would-be attackers with biological warfare agents, and 3) is doing so from a country that will not permit US troops on their territory under any circumstances. What actions would be permissible, other than sparing no expense/number of troops killed to capture the guy alive, read him his Miranda rights, etc? What actual course of action would you guys order, if you were President, to replace the current policy? Don How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start. Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges. You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly.

It's the shotgun approach. I like it. skeet gun. collarbone. ouchie.

Missing 2 punctuations and 1 intital-cap. C-minus for mechanics. Extra demerit for KDS.

Even your icon frightens me.

Then get the fuck out. We have standards here. Maybe I should have said the same to you when you bitched about my number of threads.... Why don't you two relax and get your boners under control. It was sarcasm, which I realize is lost on you guys. Lighten up, girls.

Think of it as "sexting" on a whole new level.