Jamal Khashoggi

[AM64]

You do realize this is how 99% of people are citizens right?

Nope. Perhaps for the first round of citizens when we formed a new nation - it would be a bit difficult for them to have been citizens of a country that just came into existence ... if that is your thought process. Most new US citizens today are sons and daughters of US citizens. Some of us can even trace our lineage back to the participants of the Revolutionary War.

 

[Weezer]

Yu don't understand the legal interpretation of imminent as it relates to the timeframe of plausible apprehension.

You don't understand the Constitution.

 

[AM64]

You realize the government never once provided evidence to back up their claims, right? They just said "he's al-Qaeda" and that was the extent of their proof.

I also seem to remember the obama clowns wanted captured terrorists brought to the US and tried in US courts rather than Military courts. And they wanted the people locked up in Guantanamo Bay to have due process and civil rights.

 

[luthervol]

By legal scholars the government trotted out to support their assertions. Not exactly an unbiased bunch. Much like yourself. It's a simple question, was al-Awlaki given due process as a U.S. citizen, as guaranteed by the Constitution? He was not. I don't care how your so-called legal scholars try to tap dance around it, Obama violated the Constitution. Anyone using their common sense could see it. Which is why you don't.

That's just nuts. If someone becomes a functional combatant with a stated foreign enemy, they sacrifice the rights afforded Americans.

 

[AM64]

So you are completely against the Saudis killing one of their citizens, who they deemed a terrorist, on foil soil. But are 100% cool with the US doing it. Makes a lot of sense.

The luther continuum takes makes some unusual twists and turns - most make no sense whatsoever.

 

[luthervol]

You don't understand the Constitution.

I understand that a cop can fire on a suspect raising a gun.

 

[Weezer]

That's just nuts. If someone becomes a functional combatant with a stated foreign enemy, they sacrifice the rights afforded Americans.

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

[Tyler Durden]

Nope. Perhaps for the first round of citizens when we formed a new nation - it would be a bit difficult for them to have been citizens of a country that just came into existence ... if that is your thought process. Most new US citizens today are sons and daughters of US citizens. Some of us can even trace our lineage back to the participants of the Revolutionary War.

99% of US citizens are so because they were born here irregardless of their parent's citizenship. There are obvious racial undertones to your stance, my guess is if Jamal Kashogghi were named James Williams you wouldn't have an issue with the status of his children's citizenship.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Already addressed. You're also a little late to the party.

Deserved repeating as it was so stupid

 

[Weezer]

I understand that a cop can fire on a suspect raising a gun.

Which isn't covered in the Constitution. Seems like you're confused.

 

[NorthDallas40]

99% of US citizens are so because they were born here irregardless of their parent's citizenship. There are obvious racial undertones to your stance, my guess is if Jamal Kashogghi were named James Williams you wouldn't have an issue with the status of his children's citizenship.

Nobody has a problem with the kids citizenship, we’re just pointing out that doesn’t confer rights on Kashogghi. That’s al

Also...

 

[Weezer]

You can't have reasonable conversation with an unreasonable person. <----That would be you, Luther.

I'm out.

 

[luthervol]

Where does the Constitution say that?

It's under the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" umbrella.

 

[RavinDave]

The luther continuum takes makes some unusual twists and turns - most make no sense whatsoever.

The phrase "pretzel logic" comes to mind.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Nobody has a problem with the kids citizenship, we’re just pointing out that doesn’t confer rights on Kashogghi. That’s al

Also...
View attachment 354504

Try and keep up

If his kids are citizens simply by virtue of having been born here, then they shouldn't be US citizens anyway; we need to end that idiocy like most of the world, including all of Europe, has done.

 

[volfanhill]

I understand that a cop can fire on a suspect raising a gun.

That's a law. That's not a constitutionally guaranteed and protected right.

 

[volfanhill]

Yu don't understand the legal interpretation of imminent as it relates to the timeframe of plausible apprehension.

You don't understand the difference between a constitutionally protected right and a law.

 

[luthervol]

Which isn't covered in the Constitution. Seems like you're confused.

But they legally can, right?
And it's not viewed as taking away the constitutional rights of the suspect being shot, right?

 

[luthervol]

That's a law. That's not a constitutionally guaranteed and protected right.

We are talking about the suspect. Are his constitutional rights to due process being violated? Of course not.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Try and keep up

I agree with his statement I don’t like birthright citizenship either.

Now connect the dots between birthplace and race which was your assertion

Try and keep up.

 

[luthervol]

You don't understand the difference between a constitutionally protected right and a law.

I'm comparing the suspect being shot by the cop without due process to the terrorist being killed in a drone attack without due process.

 

[luthervol]

You can't have reasonable conversation with an unreasonable person. <----That would be you, Luther.

I'm out.

It was good to see you around Weezer. Hope all is well.

 

[Tyler Durden]

I agree with his statement I don’t like birthright citizenship either.

Now connect the dots between birthplace and race which was your assertion

Try and keep up.

Nobody has a problem with the kids citizenship, we’re just pointing out that doesn’t confer rights on Kashogghi. That’s al
/QUOTE]

Can you at least be consistent? Jeez

 

[Carl Pickens]

So you're okay with a President violating a U.S. citizen's Constitutional rights. Just say that. It's what Obama absolutely did, and you're either okay with it or not. You obviously fall on the side of being okay with it. But like @volfanhill said, it's most likely because of the POTUS who made the decision. If it had been Trump, you'd be having conniptions. It's your bias showing through.

His bias is enormous .... like Mt. Everest is dwarfed in comparison....

 

[AM64]

99% of US citizens are so because they were born here irregardless of their parent's citizenship. There are obvious racial undertones to your stance, my guess is if Jamal Kashogghi were named James Williams you wouldn't have an issue with the status of his children's citizenship.

Your analysis is immaterial. If a child is born to a US citizen, the child is a citizen. Example: my younger brother was born in Japan; my parents are both US citizens; he was always a US citizen regardless of birth location - which incidentally was on a US military base because my dad was military and stationed there. Almost the same 99% you claim as citizens by birth location would be citizens if the jus soli provision were removed ... it would undoubtedly dip some because of illegal aliens dropping anchor babies.