Section 1981 U.S. Code... The Civil Rights act of 1866...

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
How can we deny the underwear bomber his civil rights and still obey section 1981 of the United States Code (AKA the Civil Rights Act of 1866)

As of the 21st century, Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
 
The fact that the U.S. Constitution says that civil and human rights are inalienable rights and that no power on earth has the right to take them away for any reason is often ignored by the right wing of the republican party.
 
wanderingbear said:
The fact that the U.S. Constitution says that civil and human rights are inalienable rights and that no power on earth has the right to take them away for any reason is often ignored by the right wing of the republican party.
Click to expand...

I guess they dont belive in "God Given Rights!"
 
Jarod said:
How can we deny the underwear bomber his civil rights and still obey section 1981 of the United States Code (AKA the Civil Rights Act of 1866)

As of the 21st century, Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
Click to expand...

are you claiming that if the underwear bomber was white we wouldn't argue he shouldn't be tried in a civil court?.....
 
Jarod said:
How can we deny the underwear bomber his civil rights and still obey section 1981 of the United States Code (AKA the Civil Rights Act of 1866)

As of the 21st century, Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
Click to expand...



Thats ironic coming from the supporters of Democrats, the party that denied citizens their rights for decades....even going so far as to fight a war over it.
 
you know, bravo, as well as anyone, that the democratic party of today has completely changed its position on civil rights. The mantle of the former democratic party was taken up by the republicans as far back as Nixon and his southern strategy.
 
maineman said:
you know, bravo, as well as anyone, that the democratic party of today has completely changed its position on civil rights. The mantle of the former democratic party was taken up by the republicans as far back as Nixon and his southern strategy.
Click to expand...

You entitled to your opinions, not your own facts...

During the 1960s, many liberals self-righteously screamed about racism, demanding that the federal government coerce Southerners into racial integration. The result of their heavy-handed tactics was more racial antagonism.

In the fall of 1968, 68 percent of black children in the South were attending all-black schools. Enter Nixon, 1969... By 1974, that number had fallen to 8 percent. This extraordinary accomplishment was achieved through the shrewd political skills and raw courage of President Nixon, Secretary of Labor George Schultz, and Attorney General John Mitchell.

Vice President Spiro Agnew chaired a special Cabinet Committee on Education, which was to find the best course of action to peacefully desegregate Southern schools in accordance with a 1969 court order.

In a 1970 memo, presidential counselor Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote, “There has been more change in the structure of American public school education in the last month than in the past 100 years.” And, like going to China, only Nixon could have done it.
Moynihan was an honorable Democrat...unlike todays breed.
 
Bottom line: All one has to do is a quick review of the number of terrorists types prosecuted in Federal Court during the Shrub's 8 years to know that all this sudden panic over trying Gitmo folk is just another part of the "get Obama" agenda of the bitter neocon driven GOP. I mean, the sheer hypocrisy of these jokers is astounding!
 
Bush prosecutions were often would-be terrorists who had, for example, been convicted of relatively minor offenses such as immigration fraud or giving false information to federal authorities, or who have helped to finance a terrorist organization. Those may be important prosecutions in combating terrorism, but they aren't on the order of Guantanamo detainees.

Gitmo detainees for the most part are fighters, captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq....

This is the distinction being made....

There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees. "Everyone is cherry-picking their numbers," said Karen Greenberg, executive director of New York University's Center on Law and Security.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...claims-bush-administration-got-190-terrorism/
-----------------------------------------
Bottom line...I don't particularly care where the hell they are tried...except to say, we would benefit more in intell. and it would cost less to use the military tribunal method....
 
bravo said:
You entitled to your opinions, not your own facts...

During the 1960s, many liberals self-righteously screamed about racism, demanding that the federal government coerce Southerners into racial integration. The result of their heavy-handed tactics was more racial antagonism.

In the fall of 1968, 68 percent of black children in the South were attending all-black schools. Enter Nixon, 1969... By 1974, that number had fallen to 8 percent. This extraordinary accomplishment was achieved through the shrewd political skills and raw courage of President Nixon, Secretary of Labor George Schultz, and Attorney General John Mitchell.

Vice President Spiro Agnew chaired a special Cabinet Committee on Education, which was to find the best course of action to peacefully desegregate Southern schools in accordance with a 1969 court order.

In a 1970 memo, presidential counselor Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote, “There has been more change in the structure of American public school education in the last month than in the past 100 years.” And, like going to China, only Nixon could have done it.
Moynihan was an honorable Democrat...unlike todays breed.
Click to expand...

are you denying the existence of a southern strategy?

further... are you suggesting that the vast majority of blacks in America, who, up until the early 50's voted almost lock step with the republican party, are so stupid that they would vote FOR a party of racists that wants to keep them shackled?

be a man and just answer those two questions...but I won't hold my breath.
 
wanderingbear said:
What does that matter? Civil and human rights have no borders.The Ideas of freedom in the U.S. constitution applys to all human beings no matter what.
Click to expand...

Am I to understand that we will now be sending deputies into Brazil to arrest shoplifters, because of this logic?

maineman said:
didn't the christmas day underwear bomber fall under US civil jurisdiction at the time he was apprehended?
Click to expand...

Did we merely place him under it, or did he categorically fall under it?
 
Threedee said:
Am I to understand that we will now be sending deputies into Brazil to arrest shoplifters, because of this logic?



Did we merely place him under it, or did he categorically fall under it?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about U.S. Law. I was talking about the ideas and philosophies embraced in the U.S. Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top