POLITICS 11/30/2017 01:42 pm ET Updated Nov 30, 2017 Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration’s ‘Ci

so, a American Christian tries to kill an abortion doctor, a terrorist act, terrorist drops gun for cops, does he have no rights, can the cops use him for target practice

I say no, we have to be better then the terrorists

 

But it does indicate who the constitution is for "We the people of the United States of America", it does not cover fighters against America.

 

I don't debate, I discuss. A debate is a game of sorts where there is a winner and a loser (or a tie). I'm not here to play games, I'm here to engage in discussions as I see fit.

You are arguing on YOUR behalf. That works both ways.

In law, court rulings are legal precedents (and often convoluted garbage that violates the Constitution). I can and have backed up all my pleadings using precedents in all the court briefs I've ever submitted. In court, you have to play the game by their rules. You also have to know and understand the FRCP. This isn't a courtroom. The US government does not operate within the constraints of the Constitution, that's why this thread exists. You are certainly free to leave the discussion for any reason, including that you don't like my responses.

I'm saying all American government servants are bound by their Oath and the Constitution to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. That means everyone in the custody of American government servants have rights protected by the Constitution and these include due process rights, which are stated quite clearly in the Constitution. And the trials at Nuremburg were perfect examples of that. If that weren't true, the Constitution would be meaningless and this would be no different than a banana republic (which is pretty much what it is right now).

 

It indicates who the authors of the Constitution are and for what reason it was created.

What does that mean? Those in the custody of American government servants are fighting no one, that's what this article and this discussion is about. See the trials at Nuremburg as an example, if that's what you're talking about.

 

Are you comparing our military to Nazi's?

 

Constitutional rights do not extend beyond US borders.

 

If they are American citizens they do

 

I never said any such thing. How did you get that from what I posted about the Nuremburg trials? However if you want to get into that discussion, what is the difference between a military that holds people in custody without access to due process and what Nazis did?

 

if your an American citizen the do regarding treatment from the US government

 

American government servants are mandated to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution anywhere and whenever they reasonably can. Treaties that the US is a signatory to are part of the Constitution via the Supremacy Clause and are generally global.

 

Not having a lawyer = the holocaust.. Got you..

 

only when it pertains with the treatment of American citizens not on American soil

 

All of this will get worked out one way or the other and nothing here will change anything that happens in relation to it.

 

That is likely the crux of the case.

 

So you want our special forces soldiers to immediately mirandize those they take alive? Should they bring attorneys with them on raids to make sure one can be quickly provided to them?

 

you cant go out and target an American citizen for assassination anywhere in country or foreign soil unless they pose an immediate threat it doesn't matter what crime they have committed they still have the constitutional right of due process

 

Obama did.

 

and he committed a crime for doing so
Many constitutional lawyers have said so

 

Constitutional rights do not extend beyond US borders. If you are in another country, you are under their jurisdiction, it US jurisdiction.

 

Constitutional rights do not extend beyond US borders.

 

yes in the hell they do when it pertains to the US government treatment of an American citizen on foreign soil
what part of that do you not understand

 

The US does not have jurisdiction outside it’s borders.

 

You didn't "get" anything obviously, you're just making crap up that has nothing to do with anything.

 

That's false, it has jurisdiction within every embassy and every base around the planet. But even where an American government servant does not have jurisdiction, he/she is still bound by the Constitution by Oath in his/her capacity as a state actor. That doesn't change ever.

 

because those areas are..............US soil. So like I said, the US does not have jurisdiction outside of it's borders.

The only law that applies in any country, is the country which has jurisdiction. If someone is in mexico, US law has no relevance there.