What about those that slip in under the radar?

There should also be a way to strip ones citizenship from them after having been charged with a crime during a war time against the US so said person can be tried as an enemy combatant.

TR would you also include civil service for those that could not serve in the Military for some reason? (ie: physical limitations, asthma, vision problems or the like)

Not speaking for TR but adding my .02... I think Fire, EMS, LEO would be included in there.

No. Serve or die!

LOL!

I think that would make sense as well...you are serving the community at large.

So, would you let people with Visa's enlist?

One other change. Marrying an American should not
expedite the process.

I need to find the article about a New York woman that
married aliens for a living. She was on husband 85, or some
ridiculous number, when BCIS/INS finally caught up with her.

AP -- Fayetteville, North Carolina -- February 22, 2004:

Local authorities announced today that The Reaper has been taken into custody on charges of plotting to destroy Washington and New York with tactical nuclear devices. Authorities allege that The Reaper is the leader of an Al Qaida sleeper cell formed over 20 years ago, when The Reaper entered the United States armed forces. Authorities seized a laptop computer and satellite phone from The Reaper's residence which they say he used to communicate secretly with his Al Qaida handlers.

"The first thing we'll do is strip him of his purported citizenship under the newly enacted "Gypsy's Law," said Richard B. "Dick" White, III, the United States Attorney for the District of North Carolina. "This man obviously doesn't deserve a trial or any other protections available to patriotic, law-abiding citizens."

* * *

The laptop and sat phone were planted. The Reaper is completely innocent. But he's at Gitmo being treated like an enemy soldier.

Still want to deny U.S. citizens their constitutional rights? Or are you guys going to try to rewrite your proposed new laws?

:D

BTW, my opinion is that I want to make life difficult for criminals and terrorists, but I do support many constitutional rights for criminal defendants. Until you've been accused, you may not appreciate how important they are.

Molon Labe!

If you catch me, you can have me.

The real issue is these people's "citizenship".

TR

When a citizen is convicted of a felony, the citizen's rights are impaired. You lose the right to vote, for example.

OK, can someone tell me what "Molon Labe" means? :(

The last sentence is understood. The fact that TR was the wrongly accused person in my example does not mean I was replying to his post. I really was responding to a bunch of posts in the thread at the same time.

Right! Until you've been unjustly accused by the Man, you just don't know. What's the reason for unjust accusations?

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...=&threadid=667

LOL - coppers need to quit playing GI Joe and get right.

:D

BTW, Sacamuelas is perpetuating the problem.

At what point has the person "taken up arms"? When the person is accused of it?

I'm going to go off on a little tangent here. I think one of the biggest problems is that the Gov doesn't want to tell the judges how they know XYZ dude is a terrorist, sympathizer, whatever. The same problem appears to be occurring with other branches of government, like Senators, etc. Why is that? IMO, because they KNOW there will be a leak. When's the last time we tried a major pwoer figure for leaking classified information? Damn Senator's aids running to the press, judges talking more than defense lawyers, etc. The whole thing has become a whore to the press.

If we can't trust a US District Court Judge with state secrets, he shouldn't be in the damn position. Same same with Senators.

One argument is that leaked secure information is more than just a problem in itself- it also allows the government to be increasingly minimalistic with the truth, while maintaining public support. Some say that instead of lying, the government simply says that pertinent information exists, but can't be exposed because of potential security hazards.

In my eyes, the lack of control over individuals- aides, judges, and most importantly the press- has created this problem. On the other hand, I think that a free press is generally beneficial (although often annoying), and is a hallmark of enlightened democracy. I'm not sure that laws can solve this problem, and that it instead relies on the morality of the government.


Solid