Senator Collins discusses Christmas Day terrorism plot on MSNBC's "Hardball"

[WeirdSymptoms]

@principalquattrono

Again, Susan never said any ONE PERSON should decide anything. It should be a consultation with all national security heads. Why do you feel the need to mis-quote her?

Susan is representing her people. There is little sentiment in this country to entend the rights of American citizens to foreign agents that cross our shores to blow up our men, women and children.

The Constitution does not protect foreign agents perpetrating mass destruction here. Nuts like you do.

[principalquattrano]

There were consultations before decisions were made. She is upset because 1.)She was not consulted and 2.) the number of persons consulted did not result in a vote to permanently strip this person of any rights.

Until someone is charged and convicted, they cannot be declared a criminal. Or a "terrorist". She is not representing her constituency, and she has broken her oath to uphold the Constitution.

The idea that foreigners have no rights is one that totally goes against the Constitution.

[WeirdSymptoms]

@principalqattrano said "Until someone is charged and convicted, they cannot be declared a criminal." Terrible logic. You are basing your conclusion on a premise that is the very question being debated! The question is "Who SHOULD be charged and convicted?" Until you offer convincing debate on what constitutes an enemy combatant, you cannot logically conclude any such thing!

[WeirdSymptoms]

A @principalquattrono half-truth: "There were consultations before decisions were made

(Burns and Barrett, AP 1/20/10) Blair told the Homeland Security Committee that he was not consulted...Janet Napolitano and Michael Leiter, chief of the National Counterterrorism Center, said they also were not consulted before the decision

(CBS Wash. Bureau, 2/3/10) Holder, not Collins, was arrogant enough to make a unilateral decision about who is/is not an enemy combatant.

Called facts.

[WeirdSymptoms]

@principalquattrono said "The idea that foreigners have no rightsgoes against the Constitution."

I never said "foreigners have no rights". I said "The Constitution does not protect foreign agents perpetrating mass destruction here." You disagree? If so please cite the verse. You cant because you made it up.

You misquote others, then argue against what was never said. You did it with Collins, now me. You would debate what is actually said if you had a logical response, which you don't.

[WeirdSymptoms]

@Clone0892

Im certainly no fan of Matthews. However, his questions to Susan were fair. I felt the Senator responded logically to all questions without dodging. Chris ultimately concluded she had presented winning arguments.

[WeirdSymptoms]

@principalquattrono

You completely ignored what Susan just said. You unfairly conclude she would give the go-ahead every time! Yet she clearly stated that this should not be decided by any single federal entity, but in consultation with all national security heads. I see no partisanship or flaw in her argument.

Shame on you for challenging her loyalty. When you gloss over good logic simply to spout your own partisan agenda, you work to bring harm to our country.

[principalquattrano]

Shame on Susan. Even before any charges are brought, they should be locked up on an indefinite basis and denied a lawyer. On what basis? If any ONE PERSON feels like it. No need for evidence.

She needed to make this statement strongly, because he has been talking without being denied his rights. She wants us to not notice that.

Again, shame on Susan for wanting to decide who gets a fair trial and who doesn't need due process. Ever.

[Jaba207]

The rights guaranteed by The Constitution are guaranteed for CITIZENS of the United States, not for terrorists that have attacked us. Wake up you bleeding-heart dumb-ass liberal.

[principalquattrano]

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are for "persons", of which non-citizens are included. Declaring a person guilty prior to charging them with any crime, as you are saying you believe should happen, and locking them up with no access to the legal system is beyond immoral.

Wake up. Next they can come for you.

Susan Collins swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and now she has decided that she doesn't like the Constitution after all and should be able to ignore it.

[WeirdSymptoms]

@principalquattrano

Let me get this straight. If I go to Achmed's country and kill him, that's OK. That's just "war". But if Achmed sneaks into the U.S. and blows up a passenger jet and 350 men, women and children, he gets special treatment??? Why, because he's smart enough to get past the TSA?

Do us a favor...move to Maine and run against Collins...assuming you are actually a US citizen??

[principalquattrano]

Nope. That's a nonsense argument that you made up because you really don't believe in the concept of human rights.

I live in Maine. I know Susan's politics intimately. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[WeirdSymptoms]

@principalquattrono said "you really don't believe in the concept of human rights."

The response of a closed, immature mind. Those who disagree with you are not just wrong. Why they are against human rights! Denigration is so much easier than thoughtful discourse.

Wrong. Most just don't define human rights the same as you do. The majority believe in Americas right to defend herself from foreign agents coming here to perpetrate mass destruction, by treating them as enemy combatants.

[flashback950]

Jaba...US Constitution simply says "persons" receive rights which was ruled by US Supreme Court just a few years ago in this same matter. So, should we follow the Constitution and Supreme court ruling or not?

[WeirdSymptoms]

flashback, that's a good point. However, I don't believe that ruling covers enemy combatants. If it did, we could not fight a war.

The question now becomes "what constitutes an enemy combatant". In my mind an admitted AlQueda agent carrying out a failed mass destruction operation qualifies.

Despite what is being touted, Collins knows this is slippery ground. She has consistantly called for a concensus from all ntl security departments.

This is no longer a black and white issue.

[Clone0892]

We as a contry and people are under attack. Matthews dosen't get that. Senator Collins does and is try to protect us. Keep it up.

[WeirdSymptoms]

The federal govenment's primary mandate is to protect us from foreign intrusion.

Your thoughtful arguments show that you are living up to that mandate while protecting the rights of citizens. As you clearly assert, this complex issue cannot be decided unilaterally by the Dept of Justice or any one department. Legal status must be made after consulting all national security departments to see what mitigating information they may have.

Thank you, Senator.

[JohnLloydScharf]

Senator, your logic is sound and conservative.

[worfking]

couldn't have said it better myself. great job senator collins

[johnsod8]

We done Senator Collins. You are spot on with your logic.