Dred Scott, pointing to why 9/11 terrorists shouldn't be civilian court tried like traitors Obama and Holder want.

Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856) is a really long-winded affair...but it addresses many of the citizenship issues that could help America, even though it was effectively overturned through the 1865 and 1868 13th and 14 Amendments to the US Constitution.



60 US 393

7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of
Page 60 U. S. 394

the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.


In effect, the terrorists have NO right to a Criminal trial, nor to be Mirandized, nor treated as US citizens. If a President of the US authorizes a US Seal to snatch a non-Geneva Convention covered enemy combatant who is not covered under any other US Treaty either, the SEAL has the legal authority to go to the fullest extent allowed them under military protocol and NOT be prosecuted for it...including temporary in the field torture under expediency (which is covered by the Executive lethal use of force authorization of the President and his lower commanders simply employing the Seals in the first place), let alone giving the terrorist a fat lip or a bruise somewhere. The terrorists have no rights to be tried in US Civilian Criminal Law.



Eric Holder and Obama are showing that they are anti-US and pro-Muslim in their insistence in babying Islamic terrorists, and calling Patriotic Americans who peacefully protest at lawful events with city issued permits and hold up signs saying they are "taxed enough already" as lawless mobs, or derogatory words to this effect. Obama is showing his Jakarta third-world hatred of the US military by doing what he can to deny EVEN

a decision to either reinforce or pull our troops out of Afghanistan. Why shouldn't he? All he knows is how to hate the military since his youth with his momma's and grandparent's anti-Vietnam Unitarian Church attending radicals in Hawaii, and his apparent race hatred of his 50% caucasian identity, which he sees the military's face as often having, which his radical friends and Pastor for over 20 years helped to grow within him.



But as Dred Scott continues:



8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.


In this context, Dred Scott meant Denizens and those foreigners living in -- visiting -- passing through the US. It had no intent of giving this right to those enemy combatants captured in Foreign Wars on Foreign Lands being brought to the United States for any reason.



Page 60 U. S. 476

... For who, it may be asked, is a citizen? What do the character and status of citizen import? Without fear of contradiction, it does not import the condition of being private property, the subject of individual power and ownership. Upon a principle of etymology alone, the term citizen, as derived from civitas, conveys the ideas of connection or identification with the State or Government, and a participation of its functions. ...


Since Al Qaeda combatants themselves claim to be "Stateless", they have no "civitas" claims...and Al Qaeda is not recognized as a legitimate or legal form of government.



The PLO prior to their unjustly acquiring the West Bank by cowardly politicians who betrayed their own peoples, legitimized that group only from the time they acquired that Land of the West Bank by formal international recognition of the intent of the specificied Land Grant, and were established when they had an actual building they called the headquarters of their Government.

We have no international recognition of Al Qaeda, no lands of specificity they call theirs, no State or Government of Al Qaeda...hence, from a legal point of view...it seems to me that, in a hypothetical future scenario, that if it should happen that tens of thousands of US Citizens rush the 9/11 terrorists in a public roadway, break them out and seize them up and snuff them out... the US Government would have to acquit the US mob of any charges regarding the harm or deaths of the 9/11 terrorists.
Hypothetically, the mob as a whole or individually could only be legally charged with any crimes of destruction of property, interference of a police officer or marshall, and any assault or what have you on the officers guarding such terrorists themselves. As I understand it, murder and man-slaughter could be argued against and prevented by US Citizen lawyers, and no jury trial in NYC or even New York State would convict them anyway.



So if that hypothetical is the case, how can anyone argue these terrorists have any "Constitutional Rights" reserved only for US Citizens and those "visiting foreigners on US soil of their own accord freely like other free non-criminal US Citizens" and expect to have US Constitutional rights after being captured on some foreign batlefield half-way around the world? Answer: without twisting or dissing the US Constitution and/or promoting an anarchic anti-US position, I really don't believe they can ... morally, legally, or philosophically. That's my editorial view, and input.