As long as the nuke goes off in a predominantly liberal area (perhaps NYC or somewhere in CA) then I say let the terrorists in. After that they'll revoke that load of shit about person to citizen.
The day terrorist light of a nuke in your neighborhood we will see how accommodating the liberals will be then! You laugh now because it seems implausible. Yeah and so was 9/11. You idiots, the borders are wide open and our open shoreline runs for thousands of miles. Who is to say that nations such Korea, China or Russia would not collaborate with Iran and send a submarine to our shores and pack in a small nuke then take out Manhattan! For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom...
"Why so much hate for Senator Collins???... this address was great."
The people here who are calling her names are doing so because they confuse her purpose in making this "great address" (which was a disgraceful perversion of that which she claims to revere) with stupidity. She's not stupid- she's an intelligent shill for a group of demagogues that worries much more about its grip on whatever power it wields in this country than in serving its constituency. She's evil, not stupid.
Why the hell can't she say the word "Administration"? She talks like a retarded idiot, and judging by her argument she really is one. She needs to read her constitution.
She looks and sounds like an uneducated/illeterate homeless person put into a power suit, slapped some make-up on, and put onto video. That being said, she still sounds more credible than Sarah Palin. But both of them are still talking things that they don't really know much about. Populism and sensationalism is very dangerous, and many of us buy into it.
She is wrong in that constitutional rights are extended to everyone in this country and not just citizens. You have to decide if he is a war criminal or not, which falls under military jurisdiction. How do you classify terrorism? The individuals act or the act of an individual based on the supported of a larger group claiming to be at war with the US. How you classify it depends on what rights he has. She did say he was foreign combatant so she has some grounds to support her comment.
Why so much hate for Senator Collins??? I am a conservative, and don't always agree with her moderately conservative views, but she is a great senator with sky high approval ratings, along with her colleague Senator Snowe. She's done a good job for her state and this address was great.
Could my friends in ME please lose this assclown ??? She sounds like she's sitting on a rocking chair reading a story to a bunch of 2nd graders seated on the carpet in front of her ... Thanks a lot for that vote on the stimulus bill, by the way, Sen. Collins.
plain and simple the republicans in office now because they do not want Obama to succeed (they didn't get upset when Bush red shoe bomber his rights) the republicans would like to rip up the constitution what a disgrace the republicans have become to the united states of America!
I vote that Senator Susan be required to personally execute any person deemed an enemy combatant, on live television once per day until she is sure that we are all safe. And she has to wear spandex and a cape.
He was treated like a criminal, period, because he is. Idiot. Oh and he's talking now. He's providing them with lots of information after his family was brought in to convince him to do so. Moron. Shut up.
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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. --U.S. Constitution
Note distinction made between citizens and any person. True, non-citizens do not have the same rights as citizens, but in this case, it says so.
Maybe she, and all the republican cowards need go hide under their beds until the trial is over. And please, dont forget to take your Depends with you; we tired of cleaning up after you.
Susan Collins, at the probable behest of her best friends Joe Lieberman and the Republican propaganda machine, decided to denounce President Obama before she knew the facts. She is the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, and while trying to ingratiate herself with teabaggers she has put her foot in her mouth. Without bothering to get good information. Disgusting.
lets do like chaney and kill them before they talk or give info, thats the way to go how many died befor giving info how many where to retarded by the end of waterboarding to give any info seems this kid has been talking for a full week with pressure from FBI and his parents no punches hmmmmmmmm I am glad to say great work security fbi and Obama I think this lady is sad she is not in the loop some how or somthing she sure did not have a ton of real info did she.
I find it curious, that whether you are 'liberal' or 'conservative', the continued debate on this site only stands to popularize it, whether you agree with it or not. I wonder how many of you will actually contact your Senators or Congressmen and become a positive unit of change yourselves. If I were to guess, I would say few of you actually know how your representatives are voting for you. Instead of bitching back and forth about things you all think you know, get involved. The system works.
The Detroit would-be bomber has been talking to US authorities, according to the FBI.
Sen. Collins is unfamiliar with the constitution she took an oath to uphold. The 14th amendment guarantees "any person" (not just US citizens) in US jurisdiction the right to due process. Even the Bush administration read "shoe bomber" Richard Reid his Miranda rights.
It's ironic that GOP partisans compare Obama to historical tyrants when GOP politicians have so much contempt for our constitution.
"Any person within its jurisdiction" means anyone on US territory or in US custody. Both clauses refer to "any person." Therefore, any person is guaranteed both due process and equal protection. Those guarantees are not limited to US citizens. The constitution makes clear distinctions between citizens and all persons when a right is limited to US citizens.
It is a minor distinction, and we both recognize the folly of Collins statements; however, you are not totally correct in claiming that the terms are always synonyms. It is not that simple. There is not space here for a complete discourse with citations, but I am extremely cognizant of Constutional law and its protections. The bottom line is that Collins, and others that complain about affording those "persons" in our country Constitutional rights, are totally, unequivocally wrong.
Funny, a few weeks ago the Republicans were demanding the resignation of the DHS chief....now Collins is saying she should have been consulted and none of this would have happened. Can we all say flip flop? Can we all also say that all this YouTube and increased 'access' to tell your version of the story has undermined our system. Clouds the truth with all these lies. You Lie!
Susan Collins was not agreeing with the GOP on that one. She agrees with the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans since she is a RINO (for what it's worth).
There is no way in hell that this person is one of 100 U.S. senators in Congress. I refuse to believe it. Democrat or Republican does not matter; this person is unfit to run the late shift at Burger King.
vincent: why don't you run? She wins by over 40% margins in a strongly democrat leaning state. We really need to get rid of these moderates like Susan, they go from right to left on a whim.
I don't have the finances to do so, and I'm sure I couldn't beat her in her own state, especially given her overwhelming popularity. All of that is irrelevant, however, to the fact that this Collins person disregards the 14th Amendment that has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in similar past cases.
I'm so glad that Obama upholds ours and the worlds right to due process. If only he would uphold ALL the other parts of the constitution that apply to U.S. citizens.
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In fairness, she seems to be saying that the guy was given the protections given American Citizens without precisely saying that the Constitution's protections are LIMITED to American Citizens. I could, for example, say that blondes who are arrested in the US have to be Mirandized, which doesn't explicitly mean that grayhairs like me don't. But her implication is clear enough; Abdu---is an enemy combatant and should have been carted off to GITMO or someplace. Crazy.
Her voice has this kind of quiver that is highly irritating and makes it sound like she's about to start crying. Anyone remember Roz from LA Law? Did she move to Maine and get elected to the Senate?
the united states constitution and the bill of rights extend to every person within the territory of the united states...not just citizens. i probably should have expected this level of ignorance from a united states senator.
This is a US Senator attempting to convince Americans that only US citizens have rights under the US Constitution. As the Constitution guarantees protections to "persons" she is implying that foreigners are not people.
Oh, for cripes sake...of course he was given a lawyer. So was Richard Reid (the Shoe Bomber) in 2002 who is now serving three consecutive life sentences at ADMAX. Where were her whining complaints then?
I mean... do we as Republicans have nothing better to talk about that we have to try to make up false interpretations of our Constitution? That is not your job, Senator. That is the job of the Supreme Court... which they have done in the cases referenced. You are wrong. I demand a correction to this video based on Supreme Court case law. It's this kind of garbage that makes it hard for me to be associated with this party.
Republicans are fucking pussies when it comes to terrorism. You are about a million times more likely to die in a car accident then from terrorism, but when Nader brought seatbelts in to law, you can be damn sure he was called a socialist.
This is below your office and a disgrace to the people of Maine. To have a high officer in the Federal Government spout such misinformation is sad. You can see for your self that not one SCOTUS judge said that our governing law does not apply to foreign combatants (see BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH).
Please have some respect for yourself, your party, and our beloved Country.
14th Amendmend: ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Person! It says person. The constitution makes a distinction between people and citizens. In this case our constitution blatantly says that he is covered. The supreme court agrees with their 1886 ruling of Wo v. Hopkins.
Susan you ignorant slut. How dare you mention our constitution after you have spent your entire political life trying to destroy it. Shut your damn mouth and read the constitution and the bill of rights. Everyone of you assholes in congress should be beaten with the constitution. You people WILL follow the constitution or you WILL face the consequences. If I need you people I'll call you, otherwise F U C K O F F.
They didn't fail anything, the Gov. it's self put the Panty bomber on the plane to track him to other terrorists. They didn't know he had a bomb on him. The had to shut down the interviews, so the truth wouldn't get out. Now all those people (on the plane ) have a reason to sue, therefor the shutdown of the interview.
To think that this woman actually helps make the laws in our country. If she were the only one, her incredible ignorance would, perhaps, not matter, but, alas, I'm afraid she is quite representative of the mentality of so many of our senators; narrow minded, terrified, little people. (My apologies to those readers of a shorter height.)
Obtuse troglodytes like Susan Collins, a so-called moderate Republican - i.e. a vehement supporter of murder, militarism, and imperialism, dominate the American government! Do you think there is any hope of the American government ascertaining, given that it is comprised of mediocrities like Susan Collins, the actual cause of Islamic terrorism, i.e. the policies ( killing and oppressing Muslims) supported by dullards like Susan Collins?
The ONLY people killing & oppressing muslims are the terrorists themselves. They'll kill anyone who doesn't believe in their ideology or aren't muslim enough. While US policies can be debated the fact is for the last 20 years, the US has been helping muslims and beneing over backwards not to offend them. We even gave aid to Iran when a major earthquake hit their country. The reality is they want to drag everybody back to the 10 century when Islam was "pure". Just go to their websites and see.
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
@nemorrats It is difficult for many Americans to see fit the allowance of due process of law to an alien whose offence is to deprive Americans of life itself therefore destroying the vary upholders of law that will indeed protect the offender. It isn't that universal. Unfortunately, there can be no winner in these cases. Whatever the outcome.
These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the UnitedStates equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court
@LLORT3 You continue to talk nonsense about something you know nothing of. Either you're simply unaware that you are embarasing yourself, or you have trouble with the English language, or worse, you've had stroke. In any case, I have simpathy for you in you delicate state. Please accept my appologies for assuming you were capable of more rigorous thought. I will trouble you no further. If you are suffering, I hope you are getting good medical care.
"Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees [vocal emphasis here] American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking."
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights pertain to all people, not just American citizens. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated this multiple times. Collins is lying.
Hopefully the 9/11 trial will be held in NYC and we will learn who the real terrorists are... and they will be tired... Giuliani, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jerome Hauer, etc. etc. and so forth.
We didn't hear Collins screeching when Chicken George & his gang of thugs tried the "Shoe Bomber" in an American court & convicted him under the guidance of the U.S. Constitution.
Sen Collins, not only are you a bald faced liar, you are a deceitful hypocrite. It's people like you, Bush, Cheney, etc., that convinced me to never again vote for a republican.
Ms. Collins, you're advocating such an inane, false, discredited proposition that it's mind-boggling that any responsible person would attempt to defend it. You're either extremely ignorant, or you're being extremely dishonest. For a thorough breakdown of just how incorrect you are, just google glenn greenwald
To all you muslim-haters out there (and in here) : Has it ever occurred to any of you dumb fucks that there might be a reason why so many of them hate you and want to hurt you? Do you think they all just woke up one morning thinking : "Hmm, I feel like hating somebody today. I think I'll go with the Americans.", or could it possibly have anything to do with you generally interfering, meddling and butt-fucking anyone as long as it gives you an edge?
There is nothing uncommon or wrong about forwarding ones own interests. How one does this can be wrong but a discussion of that will require more than the word remaining to me. Suffice to say that no action can compel assent in another. Our intentions are, in fact, the one and only thing that is completely beyond the influence of anything beyond ourselves. Hence if you kill my friend, it does not mean that I have to want to kill you, that is up to me.
"There is nothing uncommon or wrong about forwarding ones own interests".
That depends on how you go about forwarding your own interests. If it is consistently at the expense of others, then it would be reasonable to expect those "others" to not like you very much, even if they can see the reasoning behind your behavior.
The opinions of other people shouldn't guide my actions, show me the how my reason has failed and I must change my mind. Cataloging a number of people that disagree with me is useless. Also, I can do nothing that is at the expense of others since I have no power over the only thing they have that matters, their intentions. I can only harm myself by treating them in an unjust manner. If all this seems crazy to you then it requires more explanation, see Seneca.
1. I'm sorry for calling people "dumb fucks". That was uncalled for and stupid.
2. You say the only thing other people have that matters is their intentions. So family, property, friends etc. don't really matter (Esp. if they've just been bombed to bits)?
3. The opinions of others should guide your actions to a degree (but of course not completely, like all the Rand-cultists out there :D ). It's called society.
1. Pythagoras: "Never suffer sleep to close your eyes, till you have by reason examined all your actions of the day. Wherein have I done amiss? What have I omitted that I ought to have done? If in this examination you find that you have done wrong, reprimand yourself severely. And if you have done any good, rejoice."
Hehe, I'll have to keep that in mind for later use. My fingers often type faster than my brain can think with disastrous results (like the post I apologized for).
2. Its up to you to decide what things are good and what are not good. Just be aware that there are logical results from your choice that may lead to you having an unhappy life.
3. I don't think that my duties to society should be subject to majority opinion, this seems like mob rule.
2. If by this you mean that caring for my family can lead to an unhappy life, then that's a chance I'm willing to take.
3. Your argument here is self-contradictory. Our duties to society IS decided by majority opinion through elections. The elected officials help define and shape your duties to society based on the platform they were elected on (They increase taxes - it's your duty as a citizen to pay those taxes. You might not like it, but society will sanction you if you don't).
And it's not mob rule - it's majority rule (democracy if you will). It's far from perfect, but the best we have at the moment for the simple reason that people are irrational and selfish. The only way we have to avoid that influencing our society too much is by letting everyone have a say, thus "ironing out" the worst selfishness and irrationality.
(And for those who think that man is rational, I have one thing to say : Religion. Organized blind belief in something no one can prove. Case closed)
My answers will only provoke more questions because you have a set of beliefs that will make whatever I say sound ridiculous. To tell you the truth I am not fully convinced of them myself but they can be presented in a way that shows they are based on reason (see references below). Which is more than I can say about the beliefs I had prior, which were obtained in an ad-hoc method without any inspection, The moral essays of Seneca, the discourses of Epictetus, and the Dialogs of Plato.
2. Caring for you family is a duty, but before inspecting the duties of life one has to be clear about what is good, otherwise they will assume duties that do not exist. Happiness comes from always getting what you want and avoiding what you don't want.
3. Are we not also part of a larger society of man? By your standard is it not acceptable for a Taliban to blow up shoppers at a market if he is following the laws of his group? If they were democratic would that make it just?
I've been following these comments since the begining. It seems that everone is a lawyer, or a student of the Constitution, like it's their best friend and they know what it means better than the next guy. There are arguements for and against trials for 'terrorists' in American courts. Let's say an aleged 'terrorist' goes to trial and the case is dropped, or he is found inocent, or whatever. . . Than he comes back for another attack and he is successful, and many die. Did the system work?
"The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society . ."
"But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act."
Uh...I think Obama consulted the Constitution. Maybe Sen. Collins should try it. If she wants terrorists treated as enemy combatants on US soil, there are still the Geneva Convention rules we (are supposed to) use. Maybe she'd like Jack Bauer for dictator/president -- in "less than one hour of questioning! " he could get an answer from anyone about anything. Oh wait. He's a TV fictional character. Wish Susan Collins was too.
FYI.... the Constitution applies to all "persons" NOT merely "US Citizens". To assert otherwise is unconscionable.
I will say the same thing to you, Senator Collins, that I said to another congresswoman (U.S. Representatives Sue Myrick, R-South Carolina)--- You are either ignorant of the facts or you are willfully ignorant. NEITHER CASE is UNACCEPTABLE for ANY elected official.
You are a disgrace to your office. No wonder this country is descending into 3rd-world status.
Uh, Supreme Court, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, says: The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens...These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction...
The Supreme Court established in Boumediene v. Bush, that foreign nationals have habeas corpus rights. It's the law. If you don't like it, try to change it, but the Constitution appliesnot only to all citizens but to all of government, and therefore anyone who has been charged by the government with an offense has constitutional protection.
DW26851.. You are unequivocally and demonstrably wrong.
As per our framers, ALL MEN are granted inalienable rights.
"unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor" These are rights that our framers believed were our birthright as men [humans], not a right imparted by our citizenship. They're called "Natural Rights", and among them are Trial by Jury. See James Madison views on this.
Further, the Supreme Court ruled over and over again contrary to your misguided belief.
"We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "
Nowhere in the U.S. constitution do the Framers claim that U.S. citizens are the sole beneficiaries of constitutional provisions and protections. In fact, the Framers were careful to make a distinction between the use of the word "citizens" and "people" because both represent a distinct class of people.
The U.S. constitution most definitely provides rights to non-citizens.
Why don't you visit Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon. His article is entitled "Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution". Join in on the conversation in his corresponding Letters section. You might learn something in that he is a constitutional lawyer. Here's an opportunity for you to educate yourself...free of charge!
DW26851: Of course the Constitution's protections apply to non-citizens. That's high school civics stuff. Even Justice Scalia, possibly the most conservative sitting Justice, concurred with this fact in his opinion in Boumediene v. Bush in 2008. Check your facts before making such ridiculous statements. Also, keep using all caps when you type. It makes you sound smart.
Sen Collins, you are an idiot. Miranda warnings and the Constitution in general apply to all persons in the US except where it specifically references citizens. Please shut up and study the Constitution that you swore to uphold and defend.
Terry5135, I'm guessing you are a Glenn Greenwald fan. I'm a big fan of him as well. All of this also ignores the problem relating to how we are supposed to know the suspected terrorists are in fact terrorists. Can you figure this out without a fair trial? I guess we don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty in this country anymore.
Yes, how did we get to this point one wonders? How and when did America become so weak kneed and vulnerable that we're scared to death that handfuls of super-villains can make us think the country can be destroyed so easily?
"How did we get to this point" indeed? How did we get to the point that our highest elected officials and statesmen (and women) are so mentally challenged that they can barely speak? She sounds like an 8 year old.
"Lawyered up" was a phrase she used. Such contempt for the right to counsel! The Nazis hated lawyers too.
Maybe if American hadn't become a rogue nation that tortures, interrogating that guy would have been a reasonable thing to do..
The most active terrorist period in history was in the early 80's. Here's what Jerry Bremer had to say in '87, articulating Ronald Reagan's policy on terrorism (cut for space):
"... our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. [...] [A] major element of our strategy has been to [...] get society to see them for what they arecriminalsand to use democracys most potent tool, the rule of law against them."
Damn Teenagers, wannabe terrorists. I am sure Al Q told them alot about their operations around the world. Yep the Al Q are really stupid and most certainly spilled the beans to a TEENAGER.
Imagine if Civil Rights Terrorists were not given rights. Instead quitely disappeared into Military Tribunals.
Al Q ideas cannot stand scrutiny, the trial will put their ideas and ways on trial. We have extremists and Muslims have extremists.
Isn't it just fucking peachy when an elected member of our federal government asks a rhetorical question in the first 30 seconds of this video that's easily answered by reading the fucking bill of rights?
Why did we read him his rights? Because we don't live in caves and mud huts, for fucks sake. This is America, Collins needs to get a god damn intro civics class if she's too obtuse to understand that we treat ALL HUMAN BEINGS with inalienable rights.
What civics class told you that foreigners had constitutional rights? When we caught 8 Germans sneaking into the United States during WW2, liberal icon FDR had them tried by a military court and 6 of them were executed within one month. Maybe you need to go back and read the Constitution yourself.
@CookCountyDissident Do you really need this answered? Have you read the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments in the Bill of Rights? They don't fucking apply to specific people; they apply to ALL humans within US land.
and FDR also rounded up people based on skin and nationality and imprisoned them in camps. Guess what: he was fucking wrong.
What a god damn disgrace that you sneer constitutional rights when they treat those you hate with rights. I'm sure you wouldn't mind giving up the 2nd amendment?
Need I list another dozen or two supreme court decisions?
There are millions of foreign nationals in the US legally - common sense should be sufficient to recognize that they are protected by the bill of rights.
Go back to that civics class and read the bill of rights. It says nothing about "citizens".
@Terry5135 It was understanding that Boumediene v. Bush give the right of habeas corpus to detainees merely because Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was found to be 'US soil' as a result of this case. There is still an arguement to be made here. The Constitution doesn't say it applies to everyone, but it doesn't say otherwise either. Perhaps, the constitution is the real terrorist target. As far as Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it's a dusty old case about Chinese descrimination in California.
TheBizzow: "As far as Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it's a dusty old case about Chinese descrimination in California."
It's called precedent. It's what our activist Supreme Court members swore under oath to respect. We have a roman-style legal system, Common Law, where the body of law is built on precedent.
I don't disagree with your general take on BourmedieneV.Bush but lets be clear, it supports the case that the Const applies to non-citizens on US Soil (like those in our air-space).
@ffakr I get what a precedent is, no need to condescend me. The truth is, Yick Wo v. Hopkins had to do with racial descrimination, not citizenship descrimination. Terrorists are not being descriminated against because they want to operate a laundry in a wooden structure in 1886. My arguement would be that there is no precedent to try non-citizen terrorist. We are at 'psudo-war' with them. We have not officialy declaired 'war on terrorists', but I think it's clear they've declaired it on us.
Agreed on both counts. The reason I mention the old dusty case was because the Chinese guy was not a citizen. On the recent case, that's right, the disagreement was on whether these rights applied outside US borders - there were four dissenters, Scalia most vehemently. But none of the nine ever suggested that "persons" meant citizens - in fact, Scalia has written otherwise in other judgements.
The constitution doesn't say one way or the other, per se, but there are indications...
For instance, "citizens" have the right to vote. As I'm sure you know also, one amendment at least mentions both "citizens" and "persons" in regard to different rights, so they were obviously highly aware of their word choices.
Most amendment language in any event is directed at the limitations on congress, not on the recipients of rights. Again, you know this (probably better than I), so I'm sure we don't have anything major to argue about.
@Terry5135 I don't think we have much to argue about either. Especially if you believe that the law can only serve some if it stands to serve all. I hope you would agree that this is, for the most part, uncharted water though. Up to now, the implication was that the Constitution was of and for Ameicans, despite Jefferson's idea that it was a guideline for freedom of all men, wherever they are. Jefferson, although, didn't want anyone to touch it.
@Terry5135 Since then, it has been added to and altered to be less 'Worldly', and more 'American' by the hands of American lawmakes themselves. I think this has made it difficult to make it count for everybody. I don't fear the 'terrorist', I fear the lawmakers. I think Terrorism is a crime and those who have commited those crimes shoud have a fair trial, but how. Everytime we amend the Constitution, it grows a little. At the same time, it also dies a little.
@EFISHANT That's not a 'fact'. It is true that UAV actions have uped from 36 in 08 to 53 in 09, but there is a reason for that. The Bush administration was uncomfortable using this tactic because of its very low success rate. The attacks always kill more civilians than combatants. It is sad that it seems the use of UAVs are used as a political tool to show how 'clean' war can be. Don't depend on the UAV. It's a messy weapon. Many also consider it's use cowardly. It's not enough to keep us safe.
What a crazy bitch. Something is seriously wrong with this woman. I'm pretty sure my 3 year old granddaughter could read as well as her. I wonder if she ever has any input regarding what she reads.
We got to this point because you caved in to progressive ideas Susan! However, I'll give Collins this much...she has seen the more serious threat resides in the White House.
@benrocks07 ... father warned officials of his terrorist connections. Is he a racist reactionary too? Brother, that chip on your shoulder must really get heavy...yes?
@ eelzen You are more angry at Collins for chastising the method used in handleing this foreign terrorist than you are at the attempt he made to kill 300 people! Put down the kool-aide and sober up!
Who are you calling a terrorist you stupid moron? Were you there? He may have been an ordinary black muslim teenager taking a flight to America, just to be framed by the racist TSA and zionist media egging another war for oil. Not like blacks and hispanics have never been framed by the govt before. But we'll never know his side of the story, because ppl like Senator Collins have shut him up forever.
The terrorist who shot the abortion doctor has been called a hero by "some" Republicans. Still, we are a nation of laws, not a mob. Collins attacking Obama for following the law appears to be politics as usual. Her disdain for the principle of law is sad.
Reagan would call 'terrorists' freedom fighters as long as the people being terrorized weren't on the US side. Terror is a crime, not a national army. It's a shame intellectual conservatives have gone into hiding and just far Right dittoheads and tin hat wearers are heard from. Not long ago most Republicans supported the President no matter what he did. Now, with Obama, it's the reverse. The GOP motto should be "Country Last". Oh well, screw 'em. God bless President Obama & our troops.
As long as the nuke goes off in a predominantly liberal area (perhaps NYC or somewhere in CA) then I say let the terrorists in. After that they'll revoke that load of shit about person to citizen.
USmellLikeObamaShit 5 months ago
The day terrorist light of a nuke in your neighborhood we will see how accommodating the liberals will be then! You laugh now because it seems implausible. Yeah and so was 9/11. You idiots, the borders are wide open and our open shoreline runs for thousands of miles. Who is to say that nations such Korea, China or Russia would not collaborate with Iran and send a submarine to our shores and pack in a small nuke then take out Manhattan! For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom...
Gitano1776 11 months ago
Lmao - She had me laughing all through out. some one should make a spoof
PL585 1 year ago
"Why so much hate for Senator Collins???... this address was great."
The people here who are calling her names are doing so because they confuse her purpose in making this "great address" (which was a disgraceful perversion of that which she claims to revere) with stupidity. She's not stupid- she's an intelligent shill for a group of demagogues that worries much more about its grip on whatever power it wields in this country than in serving its constituency. She's evil, not stupid.
moorerp 1 year ago
Why the hell can't she say the word "Administration"? She talks like a retarded idiot, and judging by her argument she really is one. She needs to read her constitution.
BazBro 1 year ago
She looks and sounds like an uneducated/illeterate homeless person put into a power suit, slapped some make-up on, and put onto video. That being said, she still sounds more credible than Sarah Palin. But both of them are still talking things that they don't really know much about. Populism and sensationalism is very dangerous, and many of us buy into it.
TubersAndPotatoes 1 year ago
This woman is killing me. She's an idiot.
frogger91087 1 year ago 2
Why is she talking like the people that watch this are retarded?
chickenrat101 1 year ago 3
She is wrong in that constitutional rights are extended to everyone in this country and not just citizens. You have to decide if he is a war criminal or not, which falls under military jurisdiction. How do you classify terrorism? The individuals act or the act of an individual based on the supported of a larger group claiming to be at war with the US. How you classify it depends on what rights he has. She did say he was foreign combatant so she has some grounds to support her comment.
TeeDub39 1 year ago
Why so much hate for Senator Collins??? I am a conservative, and don't always agree with her moderately conservative views, but she is a great senator with sky high approval ratings, along with her colleague Senator Snowe. She's done a good job for her state and this address was great.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
Test
jsbruzina 1 year ago
Could my friends in ME please lose this assclown ??? She sounds like she's sitting on a rocking chair reading a story to a bunch of 2nd graders seated on the carpet in front of her ... Thanks a lot for that vote on the stimulus bill, by the way, Sen. Collins.
jsbruzina 1 year ago
Too bad I'm no longer registered to vote in Maine and can't vote against this slag.
Mattbro 1 year ago
plain and simple the republicans in office now because they do not want Obama to succeed (they didn't get upset when Bush red shoe bomber his rights) the republicans would like to rip up the constitution what a disgrace the republicans have become to the united states of America!
repubtodem 1 year ago
She looks like shes gonna have a stroke.
Churchx77 1 year ago
I vote that Senator Susan be required to personally execute any person deemed an enemy combatant, on live television once per day until she is sure that we are all safe. And she has to wear spandex and a cape.
WGS669 2 years ago
Another Fear Mongering Republican Bed Wetter....
I won't give up my Liberty because you are Afraid!
If you can't lead (which is obvious) either follow or get out of the way!
waynemt246 2 years ago
He was treated like a criminal, period, because he is. Idiot. Oh and he's talking now. He's providing them with lots of information after his family was brought in to convince him to do so. Moron. Shut up.
artman2oo3 2 years ago
Who is this harridan, and what has the GOP done with the mderate, sensible Susan Collins?
GameTimeProspectDept 2 years ago
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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. --U.S. Constitution
Note distinction made between citizens and any person. True, non-citizens do not have the same rights as citizens, but in this case, it says so.
frankwriter 2 years ago
Comment removed
frankwriter 2 years ago
LADY, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
israelandersonvideo 2 years ago
Maybe she, and all the republican cowards need go hide under their beds until the trial is over. And please, dont forget to take your Depends with you; we tired of cleaning up after you.
waynemt246 2 years ago
Seriously, when was the last time someone wanted to get close to this woman....within 2 feet in bed. I bet the husband has his own bedroom.
avidgolfer7705 2 years ago
This idjit makes me want to take Quietus.
choffm4 2 years ago
Susan Collins, at the probable behest of her best friends Joe Lieberman and the Republican propaganda machine, decided to denounce President Obama before she knew the facts. She is the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, and while trying to ingratiate herself with teabaggers she has put her foot in her mouth. Without bothering to get good information. Disgusting.
listengal 2 years ago 3
lets do like chaney and kill them before they talk or give info, thats the way to go how many died befor giving info how many where to retarded by the end of waterboarding to give any info seems this kid has been talking for a full week with pressure from FBI and his parents no punches hmmmmmmmm I am glad to say great work security fbi and Obama I think this lady is sad she is not in the loop some how or somthing she sure did not have a ton of real info did she.
stme2008 2 years ago
She is spreading myths about the constitution. What should we do, torture a confession out of him? You make me sick Senator.
rneberhart 2 years ago 5
I find it curious, that whether you are 'liberal' or 'conservative', the continued debate on this site only stands to popularize it, whether you agree with it or not. I wonder how many of you will actually contact your Senators or Congressmen and become a positive unit of change yourselves. If I were to guess, I would say few of you actually know how your representatives are voting for you. Instead of bitching back and forth about things you all think you know, get involved. The system works.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
How can she be a senator and not know that the Constitution of the United States guarantees these rights to ALL PERSONS, not just U.S. citizens?
WTF IS GOING ON HERE, PEOPLE!????
Stonecrab1122 2 years ago 3
The Detroit would-be bomber has been talking to US authorities, according to the FBI.
Sen. Collins is unfamiliar with the constitution she took an oath to uphold. The 14th amendment guarantees "any person" (not just US citizens) in US jurisdiction the right to due process. Even the Bush administration read "shoe bomber" Richard Reid his Miranda rights.
It's ironic that GOP partisans compare Obama to historical tyrants when GOP politicians have so much contempt for our constitution.
w9j15g 2 years ago 4
The 14th Amendment guarantess "any person" due process. The right to Equal Protection is limited to "any person within its jurisdiction."
Rebeckdon 2 years ago 2
"Any person within its jurisdiction" means anyone on US territory or in US custody. Both clauses refer to "any person." Therefore, any person is guaranteed both due process and equal protection. Those guarantees are not limited to US citizens. The constitution makes clear distinctions between citizens and all persons when a right is limited to US citizens.
w9j15g 2 years ago
It is a minor distinction, and we both recognize the folly of Collins statements; however, you are not totally correct in claiming that the terms are always synonyms. It is not that simple. There is not space here for a complete discourse with citations, but I am extremely cognizant of Constutional law and its protections. The bottom line is that Collins, and others that complain about affording those "persons" in our country Constitutional rights, are totally, unequivocally wrong.
Rebeckdon 2 years ago
50 minutes is all it took for you to suck george bush's dick you bitch
kennedy0concepcion 2 years ago
Comment removed
kennedy0concepcion 2 years ago
Comment removed
nickandnathanb2b 2 years ago
Even Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State knew we should treat them like a criminal otherwise we justify their ridiculous "jihad".
dbroncos78087 2 years ago 3
Funny, a few weeks ago the Republicans were demanding the resignation of the DHS chief....now Collins is saying she should have been consulted and none of this would have happened. Can we all say flip flop? Can we all also say that all this YouTube and increased 'access' to tell your version of the story has undermined our system. Clouds the truth with all these lies. You Lie!
ca66vwbus 2 years ago 2
Susan Collins was not agreeing with the GOP on that one. She agrees with the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans since she is a RINO (for what it's worth).
mrbrendanobrien 2 years ago
There is no way in hell that this person is one of 100 U.S. senators in Congress. I refuse to believe it. Democrat or Republican does not matter; this person is unfit to run the late shift at Burger King.
vincent21212 2 years ago 9
vincent: why don't you run? She wins by over 40% margins in a strongly democrat leaning state. We really need to get rid of these moderates like Susan, they go from right to left on a whim.
mrbrendanobrien 2 years ago
I don't have the finances to do so, and I'm sure I couldn't beat her in her own state, especially given her overwhelming popularity. All of that is irrelevant, however, to the fact that this Collins person disregards the 14th Amendment that has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in similar past cases.
vincent21212 2 years ago
@vincent21212 LMAO!!
lildwayne21 1 year ago
@vincent21212 Agreed and I come from her state!
She now wants to pass the "Kill Bill" meaning ....this Government can instantly shut off all internet access if they deem it prudent !
She needs to be voted out of office...she's become another political cancer !
willyD200 1 year ago
I'm so glad that Obama upholds ours and the worlds right to due process. If only he would uphold ALL the other parts of the constitution that apply to U.S. citizens.
mrbrendanobrien 2 years ago
This is the quality of leaders running America. Someone let the crazies out and they went strait to Washington..
flyingpigstuff 2 years ago
Seriously how do these people get elected, individuals who are suppose to uphold our government and laws
icarus628 2 years ago
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
icarus628 2 years ago 4
In fairness, she seems to be saying that the guy was given the protections given American Citizens without precisely saying that the Constitution's protections are LIMITED to American Citizens. I could, for example, say that blondes who are arrested in the US have to be Mirandized, which doesn't explicitly mean that grayhairs like me don't. But her implication is clear enough; Abdu---is an enemy combatant and should have been carted off to GITMO or someplace. Crazy.
criscusack 2 years ago
The one I like was John Stewart's line: I don't think these were the first people to ignore an email purporting to come from a Nigerian banker...
criscusack 2 years ago
Her voice has this kind of quiver that is highly irritating and makes it sound like she's about to start crying. Anyone remember Roz from LA Law? Did she move to Maine and get elected to the Senate?
criscusack 2 years ago
the united states constitution and the bill of rights extend to every person within the territory of the united states...not just citizens. i probably should have expected this level of ignorance from a united states senator.
chucky76 2 years ago
This is a US Senator attempting to convince Americans that only US citizens have rights under the US Constitution. As the Constitution guarantees protections to "persons" she is implying that foreigners are not people.
MysteriousAndy 2 years ago
The way she talks just makes me angry... I think it is her breathing
badude6688 2 years ago
As a Mainer, I'm very disappointed in Collins' boiler plate rhetoric. It shows what little respect she has for her constituency.....
marsco22202 2 years ago
I can't find her video of RICHARD REID getting his Miranda Rights under BUSH.
Please, let me know where this video is.
If it doesn't exists, then Sen. Collins is a hypocrite.
CarMoves 2 years ago
Well whether it was videotaped (and then released to YouTube) or not is irrelevant. It happened.
criscusack 2 years ago
Oh, for cripes sake...of course he was given a lawyer. So was Richard Reid (the Shoe Bomber) in 2002 who is now serving three consecutive life sentences at ADMAX. Where were her whining complaints then?
mooreti1 2 years ago
completely ad hominem ... but i want to punch this lady in the ovaries because her articulation is fucking annoying
s1ntax 2 years ago
Collins thinks she is now a Supreme Court justice.
The United States Constitution affords rights to aliens inside the country. This kind of fear mongering that continues is ridiculous.
Supreme Court Case Law:
Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
(Constitution DOES afford foreign nationals, not just U.S. Citizens)
Please google and educate yourself, since the Senator obviously cannot.
BEspinosa 2 years ago
I mean... do we as Republicans have nothing better to talk about that we have to try to make up false interpretations of our Constitution? That is not your job, Senator. That is the job of the Supreme Court... which they have done in the cases referenced. You are wrong. I demand a correction to this video based on Supreme Court case law. It's this kind of garbage that makes it hard for me to be associated with this party.
BEspinosa 2 years ago
So according to Collins' interpretation of the Constitution - no foreigner who visits the United States has any civil rights while within its borders.
They can be arrested and detained without warrant or legal representation and held indefinitely without trial.
As a Canadian business guy who travels to the US often - that's pretty fucked up.
ZeCouchMaster 2 years ago
Republicans are fucking pussies when it comes to terrorism. You are about a million times more likely to die in a car accident then from terrorism, but when Nader brought seatbelts in to law, you can be damn sure he was called a socialist.
curt470 2 years ago
Terrorists are criminals. They are not enemy combatants. Common fucking sense. Why doesn't the right wing understand?
curt470 2 years ago
This is below your office and a disgrace to the people of Maine. To have a high officer in the Federal Government spout such misinformation is sad. You can see for your self that not one SCOTUS judge said that our governing law does not apply to foreign combatants (see BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH).
Please have some respect for yourself, your party, and our beloved Country.
v2keener 2 years ago
14th Amendmend: ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Person! It says person. The constitution makes a distinction between people and citizens. In this case our constitution blatantly says that he is covered. The supreme court agrees with their 1886 ruling of Wo v. Hopkins.
z987k 2 years ago 9
Susan you ignorant slut. How dare you mention our constitution after you have spent your entire political life trying to destroy it. Shut your damn mouth and read the constitution and the bill of rights. Everyone of you assholes in congress should be beaten with the constitution. You people WILL follow the constitution or you WILL face the consequences. If I need you people I'll call you, otherwise F U C K O F F.
ucjb2 2 years ago
The US Constitution is NOT for the American people.
The US Constitution is for the United States GOVERNMENT!
We have right because the US Constitution limits what the government can do, not because it tells us what the people can do.
Republicans will never get it right.
FukYoMomma 2 years ago 3
Dumb enough to be a commentator on Fox News, Susan Collins is a disgrace to the people of Maine, the US Senate and the United States of America.
alchemistoxford 2 years ago 4
"There's no other way to explain.." Senator Collins ? how about the United States Constitution?
The Fourteenth Amendment is NOT for Americans only, as you state.
theburb08 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
theburb08 2 years ago
They didn't fail anything, the Gov. it's self put the Panty bomber on the plane to track him to other terrorists. They didn't know he had a bomb on him. The had to shut down the interviews, so the truth wouldn't get out. Now all those people (on the plane ) have a reason to sue, therefor the shutdown of the interview.
7thswan 2 years ago
To think that this woman actually helps make the laws in our country. If she were the only one, her incredible ignorance would, perhaps, not matter, but, alas, I'm afraid she is quite representative of the mentality of so many of our senators; narrow minded, terrified, little people. (My apologies to those readers of a shorter height.)
Lawrencealso 2 years ago
Obtuse troglodytes like Susan Collins, a so-called moderate Republican - i.e. a vehement supporter of murder, militarism, and imperialism, dominate the American government! Do you think there is any hope of the American government ascertaining, given that it is comprised of mediocrities like Susan Collins, the actual cause of Islamic terrorism, i.e. the policies ( killing and oppressing Muslims) supported by dullards like Susan Collins?
harmlesstree 2 years ago
The ONLY people killing & oppressing muslims are the terrorists themselves. They'll kill anyone who doesn't believe in their ideology or aren't muslim enough. While US policies can be debated the fact is for the last 20 years, the US has been helping muslims and beneing over backwards not to offend them. We even gave aid to Iran when a major earthquake hit their country. The reality is they want to drag everybody back to the 10 century when Islam was "pure". Just go to their websites and see.
vxy357 2 years ago
How does one become a US senator without reading the 14th ammendment? You're igonorance is stunning.
m0therway 2 years ago
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
nemorrats 2 years ago
@nemorrats It is difficult for many Americans to see fit the allowance of due process of law to an alien whose offence is to deprive Americans of life itself therefore destroying the vary upholders of law that will indeed protect the offender. It isn't that universal. Unfortunately, there can be no winner in these cases. Whatever the outcome.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
fail
LLORT3 2 years ago
@LLORT3 You are a clown. Go away.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
i think americans are scared of terrorists
first they stick their chests out and claim to stand up to them but then when the terrorists fight back the USA backs down
LLORT3 2 years ago
These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the UnitedStates equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court
nemorrats 2 years ago
americans are pussies when it comes to terrorism. a little terror trial and they lose their shit
LLORT3 2 years ago
@LLORT3 We know. You keep saying it over, and over, and over, and over, the same thing, over, and over, and over. . . . . . . . . .
TheBizzow 2 years ago
yeah but i just need to remind you that americans are pretty cowardly when it comes to terrorism
one little terror trial and they back down because they are scared of what the terrorists will think of america
LLORT3 2 years ago
@LLORT3 You continue to talk nonsense about something you know nothing of. Either you're simply unaware that you are embarasing yourself, or you have trouble with the English language, or worse, you've had stroke. In any case, I have simpathy for you in you delicate state. Please accept my appologies for assuming you were capable of more rigorous thought. I will trouble you no further. If you are suffering, I hope you are getting good medical care.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
ok but i think the final takeaway you should get from my point is that americans are cowards in the face of terrorism
where they used to be strong, now they run in fear from terrorists, even when they are in handcuffs
here in Israel we stand up to terrorists but it seems USA is too delicate to stand up to them
god bless
LLORT3 2 years ago
Susan Collins . . . STFU you idiot.
You should be impeached & removed from the Senate for telling such brazen lies.
Magginkat 2 years ago
Comment removed
dbla07 2 years ago
This was a lie:
"Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees [vocal emphasis here] American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking."
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights pertain to all people, not just American citizens. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated this multiple times. Collins is lying.
mtbolin 2 years ago
Hopefully the 9/11 trial will be held in NYC and we will learn who the real terrorists are... and they will be tired... Giuliani, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jerome Hauer, etc. etc. and so forth.
timothkeyyprice 2 years ago
We didn't hear Collins screeching when Chicken George & his gang of thugs tried the "Shoe Bomber" in an American court & convicted him under the guidance of the U.S. Constitution.
Sen Collins, not only are you a bald faced liar, you are a deceitful hypocrite. It's people like you, Bush, Cheney, etc., that convinced me to never again vote for a republican.
Magginkat 2 years ago
Ms. Collins, you're advocating such an inane, false, discredited proposition that it's mind-boggling that any responsible person would attempt to defend it. You're either extremely ignorant, or you're being extremely dishonest. For a thorough breakdown of just how incorrect you are, just google glenn greenwald
routh87 2 years ago
"...about hisssss sssson'ssss tiesssss to Isssslamic exsstremisssstsss..."
Her voice is so captivating <3
bludgeoningcaillou 2 years ago
Comment removed
routh87 2 years ago
To all you muslim-haters out there (and in here) : Has it ever occurred to any of you dumb fucks that there might be a reason why so many of them hate you and want to hurt you? Do you think they all just woke up one morning thinking : "Hmm, I feel like hating somebody today. I think I'll go with the Americans.", or could it possibly have anything to do with you generally interfering, meddling and butt-fucking anyone as long as it gives you an edge?
Bottom line : There's a reason people hate you!
drmannevond 2 years ago
There is nothing uncommon or wrong about forwarding ones own interests. How one does this can be wrong but a discussion of that will require more than the word remaining to me. Suffice to say that no action can compel assent in another. Our intentions are, in fact, the one and only thing that is completely beyond the influence of anything beyond ourselves. Hence if you kill my friend, it does not mean that I have to want to kill you, that is up to me.
bifnaked12345 2 years ago
"There is nothing uncommon or wrong about forwarding ones own interests".
That depends on how you go about forwarding your own interests. If it is consistently at the expense of others, then it would be reasonable to expect those "others" to not like you very much, even if they can see the reasoning behind your behavior.
drmannevond 2 years ago
The opinions of other people shouldn't guide my actions, show me the how my reason has failed and I must change my mind. Cataloging a number of people that disagree with me is useless. Also, I can do nothing that is at the expense of others since I have no power over the only thing they have that matters, their intentions. I can only harm myself by treating them in an unjust manner. If all this seems crazy to you then it requires more explanation, see Seneca.
bifnaked12345 2 years ago
1. I'm sorry for calling people "dumb fucks". That was uncalled for and stupid.
2. You say the only thing other people have that matters is their intentions. So family, property, friends etc. don't really matter (Esp. if they've just been bombed to bits)?
3. The opinions of others should guide your actions to a degree (but of course not completely, like all the Rand-cultists out there :D ). It's called society.
drmannevond 2 years ago
1. Pythagoras: "Never suffer sleep to close your eyes, till you have by reason examined all your actions of the day. Wherein have I done amiss? What have I omitted that I ought to have done? If in this examination you find that you have done wrong, reprimand yourself severely. And if you have done any good, rejoice."
bifnaked12345 2 years ago
Hehe, I'll have to keep that in mind for later use. My fingers often type faster than my brain can think with disastrous results (like the post I apologized for).
drmannevond 1 year ago
2. Its up to you to decide what things are good and what are not good. Just be aware that there are logical results from your choice that may lead to you having an unhappy life.
3. I don't think that my duties to society should be subject to majority opinion, this seems like mob rule.
bifnaked12345 2 years ago
2. If by this you mean that caring for my family can lead to an unhappy life, then that's a chance I'm willing to take.
3. Your argument here is self-contradictory. Our duties to society IS decided by majority opinion through elections. The elected officials help define and shape your duties to society based on the platform they were elected on (They increase taxes - it's your duty as a citizen to pay those taxes. You might not like it, but society will sanction you if you don't).
drmannevond 1 year ago
And it's not mob rule - it's majority rule (democracy if you will). It's far from perfect, but the best we have at the moment for the simple reason that people are irrational and selfish. The only way we have to avoid that influencing our society too much is by letting everyone have a say, thus "ironing out" the worst selfishness and irrationality.
(And for those who think that man is rational, I have one thing to say : Religion. Organized blind belief in something no one can prove. Case closed)
drmannevond 1 year ago
My answers will only provoke more questions because you have a set of beliefs that will make whatever I say sound ridiculous. To tell you the truth I am not fully convinced of them myself but they can be presented in a way that shows they are based on reason (see references below). Which is more than I can say about the beliefs I had prior, which were obtained in an ad-hoc method without any inspection, The moral essays of Seneca, the discourses of Epictetus, and the Dialogs of Plato.
bifnaked12345 1 year ago
And the answers:
2. Caring for you family is a duty, but before inspecting the duties of life one has to be clear about what is good, otherwise they will assume duties that do not exist. Happiness comes from always getting what you want and avoiding what you don't want.
3. Are we not also part of a larger society of man? By your standard is it not acceptable for a Taliban to blow up shoppers at a market if he is following the laws of his group? If they were democratic would that make it just?
bifnaked12345 1 year ago
Ha ... what a load of bull.
jimrmowen 2 years ago
she lies. plain and simple... or she is just stupid... isn't she requred to uphold the constitiution?
saxnviolinz 2 years ago
I've been following these comments since the begining. It seems that everone is a lawyer, or a student of the Constitution, like it's their best friend and they know what it means better than the next guy. There are arguements for and against trials for 'terrorists' in American courts. Let's say an aleged 'terrorist' goes to trial and the case is dropped, or he is found inocent, or whatever. . . Than he comes back for another attack and he is successful, and many die. Did the system work?
TheBizzow 2 years ago
This woman has an ugly big nose. Goes with her lying, kind of like Pinnochio.
demdebsf 2 years ago
See Glenn Greenwald's blog post of 2/1/10.
Antonin Scalia:
"The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society . ."
"But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act."
DethFiesta 2 years ago 3
Uh...I think Obama consulted the Constitution. Maybe Sen. Collins should try it. If she wants terrorists treated as enemy combatants on US soil, there are still the Geneva Convention rules we (are supposed to) use. Maybe she'd like Jack Bauer for dictator/president -- in "less than one hour of questioning! " he could get an answer from anyone about anything. Oh wait. He's a TV fictional character. Wish Susan Collins was too.
riverpath 2 years ago 2
Susan Collins, I've ranked your video 5 stars with the hope that more people will witness your ignorance.
Ignorance is perhaps generous. The other option is that you are blatantly lying.
ffakr 2 years ago 2
Meant to say: "Neither case is acceptable".... sheesh!
enoughspin 2 years ago
FYI.... the Constitution applies to all "persons" NOT merely "US Citizens". To assert otherwise is unconscionable.
I will say the same thing to you, Senator Collins, that I said to another congresswoman (U.S. Representatives Sue Myrick, R-South Carolina)--- You are either ignorant of the facts or you are willfully ignorant. NEITHER CASE is UNACCEPTABLE for ANY elected official.
You are a disgrace to your office. No wonder this country is descending into 3rd-world status.
enoughspin 2 years ago
enoughspin: Let me me make one thing CLEAR.
The Constitution states the following:
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, it DOES NOT say WE THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.
You are a DISGRACE if you think for one minute that our Constitution gives rights to NON US citizens.
DW26851 2 years ago
Uh, Supreme Court, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, says: The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens...These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction...
NullSpaceKid 2 years ago 3
The Supreme Court established in Boumediene v. Bush, that foreign nationals have habeas corpus rights. It's the law. If you don't like it, try to change it, but the Constitution appliesnot only to all citizens but to all of government, and therefore anyone who has been charged by the government with an offense has constitutional protection.
cinemaman3105 2 years ago 2
DW26851.. You are unequivocally and demonstrably wrong.
As per our framers, ALL MEN are granted inalienable rights.
"unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor" These are rights that our framers believed were our birthright as men [humans], not a right imparted by our citizenship. They're called "Natural Rights", and among them are Trial by Jury. See James Madison views on this.
Further, the Supreme Court ruled over and over again contrary to your misguided belief.
ffakr 2 years ago 3
"We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "
Nowhere in the U.S. constitution do the Framers claim that U.S. citizens are the sole beneficiaries of constitutional provisions and protections. In fact, the Framers were careful to make a distinction between the use of the word "citizens" and "people" because both represent a distinct class of people.
The U.S. constitution most definitely provides rights to non-citizens.
Weleski 2 years ago 3
Why don't you visit Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon. His article is entitled "Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution". Join in on the conversation in his corresponding Letters section. You might learn something in that he is a constitutional lawyer. Here's an opportunity for you to educate yourself...free of charge!
enoughspin 2 years ago 2
DW26851: Of course the Constitution's protections apply to non-citizens. That's high school civics stuff. Even Justice Scalia, possibly the most conservative sitting Justice, concurred with this fact in his opinion in Boumediene v. Bush in 2008. Check your facts before making such ridiculous statements. Also, keep using all caps when you type. It makes you sound smart.
mtbolin 2 years ago 3
Sen Collins, you are an idiot. Miranda warnings and the Constitution in general apply to all persons in the US except where it specifically references citizens. Please shut up and study the Constitution that you swore to uphold and defend.
tballou1 2 years ago
Terry5135, I'm guessing you are a Glenn Greenwald fan. I'm a big fan of him as well. All of this also ignores the problem relating to how we are supposed to know the suspected terrorists are in fact terrorists. Can you figure this out without a fair trial? I guess we don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty in this country anymore.
TheAgnosticInfidel 2 years ago
Yes, how did we get to this point one wonders? How and when did America become so weak kneed and vulnerable that we're scared to death that handfuls of super-villains can make us think the country can be destroyed so easily?
We'd shit in our pants at The Mouse That Roared.
Some super power!
Terry5135 2 years ago 2
"How did we get to this point" indeed? How did we get to the point that our highest elected officials and statesmen (and women) are so mentally challenged that they can barely speak? She sounds like an 8 year old.
"Lawyered up" was a phrase she used. Such contempt for the right to counsel! The Nazis hated lawyers too.
Maybe if American hadn't become a rogue nation that tortures, interrogating that guy would have been a reasonable thing to do..
Terry5135 2 years ago
"How did we get to this point?"
Um...I believe it is called (and please, check my spelling on this), the Constitution.
chef1coleman 2 years ago 2
The most active terrorist period in history was in the early 80's. Here's what Jerry Bremer had to say in '87, articulating Ronald Reagan's policy on terrorism (cut for space):
"... our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. [...] [A] major element of our strategy has been to [...] get society to see them for what they arecriminalsand to use democracys most potent tool, the rule of law against them."
That woman is unhinged, she hasn't a clue!
Terry5135 2 years ago
Thank you, Senator. About time our representative had the stones to call and idiot and idiot, and a stupid policy a stupid policy.
Obama is the worst president in American history, and if he's not unAmerican, his only excuse can only be complete stupidity.
braininahat 2 years ago
She sounds a lot like Liz Cheney.
Why is Susan Collins shilling for Dick?
Silberdachs 2 years ago
Quit shilling for the rich, represent the people in you state.
JimJimowill 2 years ago
Damn Teenagers, wannabe terrorists. I am sure Al Q told them alot about their operations around the world. Yep the Al Q are really stupid and most certainly spilled the beans to a TEENAGER.
Imagine if Civil Rights Terrorists were not given rights. Instead quitely disappeared into Military Tribunals.
Al Q ideas cannot stand scrutiny, the trial will put their ideas and ways on trial. We have extremists and Muslims have extremists.
Bush tried the ADULT in Court.
lewislwood 2 years ago
Isn't it just fucking peachy when an elected member of our federal government asks a rhetorical question in the first 30 seconds of this video that's easily answered by reading the fucking bill of rights?
Why did we read him his rights? Because we don't live in caves and mud huts, for fucks sake. This is America, Collins needs to get a god damn intro civics class if she's too obtuse to understand that we treat ALL HUMAN BEINGS with inalienable rights.
MarkG45 2 years ago 2
What civics class told you that foreigners had constitutional rights? When we caught 8 Germans sneaking into the United States during WW2, liberal icon FDR had them tried by a military court and 6 of them were executed within one month. Maybe you need to go back and read the Constitution yourself.
CookCountyDissident 2 years ago
@CookCountyDissident Do you really need this answered? Have you read the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments in the Bill of Rights? They don't fucking apply to specific people; they apply to ALL humans within US land.
and FDR also rounded up people based on skin and nationality and imprisoned them in camps. Guess what: he was fucking wrong.
What a god damn disgrace that you sneer constitutional rights when they treat those you hate with rights. I'm sure you wouldn't mind giving up the 2nd amendment?
MarkG45 2 years ago 5
What civics class indeed?!
See Boumediene v. Bush, 2006;
See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886.
Need I list another dozen or two supreme court decisions?
There are millions of foreign nationals in the US legally - common sense should be sufficient to recognize that they are protected by the bill of rights.
Go back to that civics class and read the bill of rights. It says nothing about "citizens".
Terry5135 2 years ago 2
@Terry5135 It was understanding that Boumediene v. Bush give the right of habeas corpus to detainees merely because Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was found to be 'US soil' as a result of this case. There is still an arguement to be made here. The Constitution doesn't say it applies to everyone, but it doesn't say otherwise either. Perhaps, the constitution is the real terrorist target. As far as Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it's a dusty old case about Chinese descrimination in California.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TheBizzow: "As far as Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it's a dusty old case about Chinese descrimination in California."
It's called precedent. It's what our activist Supreme Court members swore under oath to respect. We have a roman-style legal system, Common Law, where the body of law is built on precedent.
I don't disagree with your general take on BourmedieneV.Bush but lets be clear, it supports the case that the Const applies to non-citizens on US Soil (like those in our air-space).
ffakr 2 years ago
@ffakr I get what a precedent is, no need to condescend me. The truth is, Yick Wo v. Hopkins had to do with racial descrimination, not citizenship descrimination. Terrorists are not being descriminated against because they want to operate a laundry in a wooden structure in 1886. My arguement would be that there is no precedent to try non-citizen terrorist. We are at 'psudo-war' with them. We have not officialy declaired 'war on terrorists', but I think it's clear they've declaired it on us.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
Agreed on both counts. The reason I mention the old dusty case was because the Chinese guy was not a citizen. On the recent case, that's right, the disagreement was on whether these rights applied outside US borders - there were four dissenters, Scalia most vehemently. But none of the nine ever suggested that "persons" meant citizens - in fact, Scalia has written otherwise in other judgements.
The constitution doesn't say one way or the other, per se, but there are indications...
More
Terry5135 2 years ago
For instance, "citizens" have the right to vote. As I'm sure you know also, one amendment at least mentions both "citizens" and "persons" in regard to different rights, so they were obviously highly aware of their word choices.
Most amendment language in any event is directed at the limitations on congress, not on the recipients of rights. Again, you know this (probably better than I), so I'm sure we don't have anything major to argue about.
Terry5135 2 years ago
@Terry5135 I don't think we have much to argue about either. Especially if you believe that the law can only serve some if it stands to serve all. I hope you would agree that this is, for the most part, uncharted water though. Up to now, the implication was that the Constitution was of and for Ameicans, despite Jefferson's idea that it was a guideline for freedom of all men, wherever they are. Jefferson, although, didn't want anyone to touch it.
More
TheBizzow 2 years ago
@Terry5135 Since then, it has been added to and altered to be less 'Worldly', and more 'American' by the hands of American lawmakes themselves. I think this has made it difficult to make it count for everybody. I don't fear the 'terrorist', I fear the lawmakers. I think Terrorism is a crime and those who have commited those crimes shoud have a fair trial, but how. Everytime we amend the Constitution, it grows a little. At the same time, it also dies a little.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
They come here because we are there.
MendingMedia 2 years ago 2
The only thing worse than a RINO is a Liberal.. Fuck Muslims, these are the real terrorists..
Govhater2 2 years ago
@Govhater2: Love your YT page. All those White Supremacist vids, anti-semitic rants, 'kill all muslims' slogans.
It's so 1933.
But I guess it must really suck to be an empty, worthless, pig-ignorant, racist piece of white trash trailer park dog shit like you.
Word from the World:
Don't breed.
Die soon.
Real soon.
Silberdachs 2 years ago 3
Het you stupid hillbilly's! Hello!
Obama has launched more drone attacks in the last year that Bush did in the last 4 years! That's a fact!
So all of you conservative, white trash idiots who say he's not trying to keep us safe can kiss my liberal ass!
EFISHANT 2 years ago
@EFISHANT That's not a 'fact'. It is true that UAV actions have uped from 36 in 08 to 53 in 09, but there is a reason for that. The Bush administration was uncomfortable using this tactic because of its very low success rate. The attacks always kill more civilians than combatants. It is sad that it seems the use of UAVs are used as a political tool to show how 'clean' war can be. Don't depend on the UAV. It's a messy weapon. Many also consider it's use cowardly. It's not enough to keep us safe.
TheBizzow 2 years ago
WOW! How did this nut get in front of a camera??? Not only is she profoundly stupid, she can bearly speak. What a train wreck.
garage3d 2 years ago
can she say - she sells sea shells - 5 times??
turtleblues66 2 years ago
1. it's not a war 2. treat people as you want to be treated 3. follow your bible or put it down.
quicknuss 2 years ago
Aiding the Enemy during Wartime????
Isn't that punishable by DEATH????? If it's not, it should be....
ImpeachBloBama 2 years ago
I wonder sometimes if these people think what they say makes any sense? Surely they don't?
overtbellicosity 2 years ago 2
Get your 3 year old to translate --R.I.G.H.T. O.N. S.U.S.A.N.
freereason 2 years ago
What a crazy bitch. Something is seriously wrong with this woman. I'm pretty sure my 3 year old granddaughter could read as well as her. I wonder if she ever has any input regarding what she reads.
burtondg 2 years ago
We got to this point because you caved in to progressive ideas Susan! However, I'll give Collins this much...she has seen the more serious threat resides in the White House.
msmanet 2 years ago
Shoot this POS while trying to escape. Arab scum.
IIICyrenaica 2 years ago
Obama wanted us to think this was just an "ordinary criminal" and we should thank Collins for calling the president on it.
tvjustice 2 years ago
Why in the FUCK is this RINO piece of shit on here..
Govhater2 2 years ago
Comment removed
tvjustice 2 years ago
@benrocks07 ... father warned officials of his terrorist connections. Is he a racist reactionary too? Brother, that chip on your shoulder must really get heavy...yes?
freereason 2 years ago 4
rino
bigdogsdontbark 2 years ago
Collins talks tough and you cry racist. Sick of cry babies like you.
freereason 2 years ago
@ eelzen You are more angry at Collins for chastising the method used in handleing this foreign terrorist than you are at the attempt he made to kill 300 people! Put down the kool-aide and sober up!
freereason 2 years ago
Who are you calling a terrorist you stupid moron? Were you there? He may have been an ordinary black muslim teenager taking a flight to America, just to be framed by the racist TSA and zionist media egging another war for oil. Not like blacks and hispanics have never been framed by the govt before. But we'll never know his side of the story, because ppl like Senator Collins have shut him up forever.
benrocks07 2 years ago
The terrorist who shot the abortion doctor has been called a hero by "some" Republicans. Still, we are a nation of laws, not a mob. Collins attacking Obama for following the law appears to be politics as usual. Her disdain for the principle of law is sad.
eelzen 2 years ago
@eelzen What Republicans are claiming the shooter is a 'hero'? Give us just one name. . . . come on. . . . who?
TheBizzow 2 years ago
Reagan would call 'terrorists' freedom fighters as long as the people being terrorized weren't on the US side. Terror is a crime, not a national army. It's a shame intellectual conservatives have gone into hiding and just far Right dittoheads and tin hat wearers are heard from. Not long ago most Republicans supported the President no matter what he did. Now, with Obama, it's the reverse. The GOP motto should be "Country Last". Oh well, screw 'em. God bless President Obama & our troops.
eelzen 2 years ago
@eelzen Is it your intention to resist answering my question? A simple question at that. 'What Republicans have called the abortion doctor a hero?'
TheBizzow 2 years ago
TehBizzow.
If you goggle it, O'Reilly is #1. BTW, ff you call abortion murder then what d