|
View Poll Results: What SNG limit do you most often play? | |||
Step 5+ | 1 | 1.08% | |
109 | 10 | 10.75% | |
215 | 5 | 5.38% | |
55 | 22 | 23.66% | |
22 | 41 | 44.09% | |
33 | 14 | 15.05% | |
Voters: 93. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should EVERYBODY be given a fair process?
You need to brush up on your legal terminology, or just give your post a once-over after you write it (human rights? fair lawsuit?).
Anywho... In some situations, an individual should be outright killed without any attempt for apprehension or a fair trial... ...unless you think GWB should call up the Rangers, SEALS, and Force Recon and tell them to set their phasers on stun while hunting Osama. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should EVERYBODY be given a fair process?
The US Constitution and the rights it details are applicable ONLY TO US CITIZENS.
A non-US citizen has NO constitutional rights. They however have the rights defined in various treaties the US has signed (human rights treaties, Geneva convention, etc.) Not exactly what you asked, but wanted to throw that out there. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should EVERYBODY be given a fair process?
[ QUOTE ]
The US Constitution and the rights it details are applicable ONLY TO US CITIZENS. A non-US citizen has NO constitutional rights. [/ QUOTE ] Where does the Constitution say that? We know that the text of the Constitution understands the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen because it uses the term Citizen...why then would it use the more broad term "person" (or people) when stating rights? If it was meant to only apply to citizens the framers would have said "citizens" instead of person. The 14th Amendment (just as an example) uses both citizen and person -- those terms then, obviously, have a different meaning to the framers. Consider this language: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The second clause would have read "nor shall any State deprive any citizen..." if that's what was meant. Clearly it meant to be more broad than just applying to citizens, in fact it applies to "any person." |
|
|