Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 2, 2015

[video=youtube;Nt6kKhlX8vU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU&sns=em[/video]

Umbran · Dec 2, 2015

Maxperson said:
I have read it. No law, including the Constitution applies outside of our borders except when it concerns our citizens, and even that is limited with regard to our citizens also being subject to the laws of the country they are in.

I say, again - the text does not support the idea that citizens and non-citizens are different. Either the law applies to *both* or to neither.

I agree with you that US criminal law generally does not apply outside our borders - but it does not apply to either citizens or non-citizens.

We aren't even remotely close to saying the US cannot prosecute a war.

Of course, not - I'm just saying your simple interpretation leads to that result because, as I have noted several times, the document does not discriminate between citizens and non-citizens on the subject of jurisprudence.

Outside of American citizens, the Constitution literally cannot apply to any other person.

That is incorrect. The Constitution applies to everyone within our borders. Whether you are a citizen or not, you get due process if you are to face criminal charges within the US. As you note, the US doesn't get to prosecute people who are acting in other nations, as our law does not apply - again, citizenship is not relevant. If a crime was committed within our borders, and the suspect then left, we can generally only ask for them to be extradited, such that we can then go through our normal legal processes for prosecuting a crime.

Thus, the only time we get to extend our arms to people who are elsewhere is when it *isn't* a question of criminal law. I reiterate that the Founding Fathers clearly understood that there were cases where criminal law did not apply - within our borders or without, even short of a declaration of war. The AUMF sits as a case of governmental recognition/declaration of such a situation.

I hold little faith in that ever happening.

Lack of faith in the possibility leads to self-fulfilling prophecy. The world cannot change if you do not act as if it can be changed.

Mind you, the AUMF is not "massive". It is 315 words. 151 words if we toss out the preamble as non-binding fluff. That it is broad and open-ended is bleedingly obvious, not hidden in 17 levels of sub-sections and appendices.

Maxperson · Dec 3, 2015

Umbran said:
I say, again - the text does not support the idea that citizens and non-citizens are different. Either the law applies to *both* or to neither.

It can't apply to both outside the borders and it can apply to citizens. What you say is only true within the U.S.

I agree with you that US criminal law generally does not apply outside our borders - but it does not apply to either citizens or non-citizens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/u...cans-who-commit-sex-crimes-overseas.html?_r=0

It does apply to citizens outside the US, but not non-citizens.

That is incorrect. The Constitution applies to everyone within our borders. Whether you are a citizen or not, you get due process if you are to face criminal charges within the US. As you note, the US doesn't get to prosecute people who are acting in other nations, as our law does not apply - again, citizenship is not relevant. If a crime was committed within our borders, and the suspect then left, we can generally only ask for them to be extradited, such that we can then go through our normal legal processes for prosecuting a crime.

You can stop with the "within our borders" stuff. I haven't argued against that and we are in agreement that the US Constitution applies to all within our borders. I'm talking about outside our borders.

Thus, the only time we get to extend our arms to people who are elsewhere is when it *isn't* a question of criminal law. I reiterate that the Founding Fathers clearly understood that there were cases where criminal law did not apply - within our borders or without, even short of a declaration of war. The AUMF sits as a case of governmental recognition/declaration of such a situation.

The AUMF is not due process and Americans are guaranteed due process from our government no matter what. I provided the link.

Lack of faith in the possibility leads to self-fulfilling prophecy. The world cannot change if you do not act as if it can be changed.

Who said anything about acting that way. I dutifully cast my vote in vain against those that act that way. If my vote was the only one that mattered, the country would be in much better hands right now. It's not, though, so the masses of sheep that keep re-electing incompetent leaders continue to lead our country astray.

Mind you, the AUMF is not "massive". It is 315 words. 151 words if we toss out the preamble as non-binding fluff. That it is broad and open-ended is bleedingly obvious, not hidden in 17 levels of sub-sections and appendices.

It's also not due process, so it can't take away an American's right to due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.

tomBitonti · Dec 3, 2015

I say, again - the text does not support the idea that citizens and non-citizens are different. Either the law applies to *both* or to neither.

It can't apply to both outside the borders and it can apply to citizens. What you say is only true within the U.S.

Whether a person is within the Unted States borders (or in a place under their control, such as Guantanamo) is different than whether that person is a citizen. Theses are different questions.

My understanding is that most protections apply equally to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, within the United States borders.

Some laws (as opposed to rights) extend beyond the borders. For example, laws against murder.

Here is a good read:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...o_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

Thx!
TomB

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-Persecuted-Christians/page105#ixzz3tFzLF4By

Sadras · Dec 3, 2015

Maxperson said:
I dutifully cast my vote in vain against those that act that way. If my vote was the only one that mattered, the country would be in much better hands right now. It's not, though, so the masses of sheep that keep re-electing incompetent leaders continue to lead our country astray.

Apparently using the word sheep in someone's argument is a big no-no as informed to me in post #21 on this thread (included below). I find the word 'turkeys' to be a suitable replacement. Haven't had any comebacks as yet.

William Bonney said:
Please don't use the word 'sheep' in a serious post unless you're referring to Ovis aries, it's really pretentious and detracts from your position.