Sen. Collins explains herself on MSNBC

Collins will be on Hardball at 5 p.m. (0.00 / 0)

h/t AJ Higgins here.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 15:52:24 PM CST

Well, if you read just the Preamble . . (0.00 / 0)

to the Constitution established an "implication" of American citizenship (that is, "We the people of the United States of America...")  The amendments, that we now call the Bill of Rights, were amendments to that Constitution.

And:

That Constitution was written by and for the Citizens of the United States of America. It does not apply to Citizens or Subjects of another Country. So, what is done to terrorists by us or to others outside of the United States, as long as they are NOT citizens of the United States is NOT covered under our Constitution.  

---

by: thejuri1 @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 16:29:20 PM CST

Really? Please cite SCOTUS (0.00 / 0)

rulings to support your claims.

Of course, the Preamble doesn't begin:

We the citizens of the United States..."

The Framers were very careful when they used "citizen" and "person." You ought to do some reading about this and let us know what you find out.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 17:25:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The preamble is pretty easy to understand (0.00 / 0)

"We The People Of The United States or America" What more is there to say?  

Some may argue that the Constitution the law of the land, not just its citizens; but without a doubt, Miranda rights do not apply to the underwear bomber.

If you want to review what a "Citizen" means under US Federal law, please refer to Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, 1402 of the US Code.

What SCOTUS ruling do YOU want to quote supporting your argument that the Constitution and its bill of rights apply to foreign enemy combatants?  

---

by: thejuri1 @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 18:57:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite sure why you insist (0.00 / 0)

on limiting protections to just the Bill of Rights, because the ENTIRE Constitution is ALWAYS in play. But to answer your question, see Hamden v. Rumsfeld for starters.

Seriously. Go read commentary about it. Then check out Boumediene et. al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et. al..

See you in a couple of days.

BTW, the "citizen" you cite is: § 1402. Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and has nothing to do with SCOTUS rulings. Nice try though.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 19:10:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK, you found wrong headed . . . (0.00 / 0)

liberal re-writes of the constitution.  Foreign enemy combatants should not have Miranda rights.  The framers did in intend for its laws and right to apply to non-citizens.  

Even Chris Mathews on tonight's' MSNBC interview with Susan Collins stated she made a very good argument.  Unpopular in liberal blogs, but there it is.

---

by: thejuri1 @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 19:33:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It' mystifying (0.00 / 0)

that this passes for reasoned debate. And that someone politically-engaged enough to read this blog is so cavalier about the Constitution and the basic nuts and bolts of American history.

---

by: collinswatch @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 19:40:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Because you don't agree . . . . (0.00 / 0)

is not that mystifying.  The basic nuts and bolts of history is always and will continue to be up for debate.  History is written by authors with opinions and biases.  "Facts" are whatever historians say they are.  Don't be so blind to think that there is only the liberal view of history.  

The framers did not intend our constitution to be perverted by and unelected body of judges.  The US constitution does not protect those who are at war with America.

Bottom line, foreign enemy combatants should not have Miranda rights.  
 

---

by: thejuri1 @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 20:31:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Check and balance the Right (0.00 / 0)

The framers did not intend our constitution to be perverted by and unelected body of judges.

Makes one wonder why they created a judicial branch of government as a check and balance.  The conservative pipeline to the founders' inner thoughts only seems to flow with myths.  If any branch has grown too powerful, it is that of the executive, regardless of occupant.

History is written by authors with opinions and biases.  "Facts" are whatever historians say they are.

You are a victim of your own pen.

---

by: Bruce Bourgoine @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:05:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The terrifying right to remain silent (0.00 / 0)

Matt Apuzzo on the terrifying right to remain silent:

The suddenly fierce debate over how to investigate suspected terrorists allows politicians to ignore history, mischaracterize the Constitution and add new uncertainty to a system that two administrations and countless intelligence officials from both parties have spent a decade trying to clarify.

It was a somewhat unexpected controversy. Abdulmutallab, after all, was not the first terrorism suspect captured in the U.S. since 2001. The Bush administration sent many terrorists to prison, including U.S. sleeper cell members, a 9/11 coconspirator and a man who tried to bring down an airplane with a bomb in his shoe.

All were read their rights. All got lawyers. All appeared in court.

---

After the Christmas plot, however, the president's critics say the administration should have treated Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant. The right to a lawyer, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, alleged last week, is reserved for American citizens, not foreign terrorists.

Collins is wrong. Immigrants, even those who entered the country illegally, are guaranteed lawyers in the U.S. when they commit a crime. But the danger of the argument is not in its legal weakness. It's in its consequences.

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 21:33:19 PM CST