Why does being investigated by the FBI only disqualify folk from some rights?

I was struck yesterday by the response from the left and Clinton in particular over the Orlando attack. She said “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun.”...

Think about this idea..The FBI investigates someone and his right to travel or protect himself goes away BUT, if the FBI investigates a Clinton for a criminal act, she is perfectly free to run for president!

Today I find others also see the hypocrisy...

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13...estigation-should-lose-constitutional-rights/

Should folk under criminal investigation be able to buy guns, travel by air, or run for office? If no to one why not to the rest?

 

I'm not sure Clinton, as much I would like to see her fall, was being investigated for terrorist links...

 

So the type of crime one is being investigated for, prior to indictment and trial, is what matters. possible terrorist trumps possible treason and mishandling of classified material. No, I don't buy it. it is too close to the other Clinton's parsing the definition of 'is'.

 

I'm not sure that mishandling of classified material would warrant limitation of the 2nd... Where there is a possibility of loss of life, then I can get behind that.
So would mishandling of information apply to the pursuit of any job, or just POTUS? Otherwise the same thinking that you don't like applies; that the "type of job" is what matters.

If not, is it fair to not allow someone to work or purchase guns due to investigation?

 

so we have lesser rights...some cannot be infringed and others can be fiddled with. Interesting idea. Lets take it a bit further...should a person applying for the nuclear codes being investigated by the FBI for criminal behavior be denied access to those codes?

 

I don't believe we have lesser rights; or at least we should not.
The response needs to be proportionate. If someone is being investigated for terrorism, then denying them access to potential terrorist tools seems logical. Preventing them access to food, as a ridiculous example, would not be proportionate.

If someone is being investigated for some kind of "treason or actions that would purposefully bring down the US", then denying them access to launch codes seems reasonable. I don't think being investigated for not storing/using emails properly warrants denying access to nuclear codes. I don't believe any action Clinton took regarding the emails was perceived to be a threat to the country in the way that nuclear codes could be used as a threat to the country in the way you are suggesting... even if I don't want her at the helm.

 

The law says differently. If convicted of mishandling classified material one is prohibited from holding Federal office. Note the key word...'convicted'. My issue is in her assumption that her criminality requires a conviction for the penalties to apply but others lose basic rights when simply being investigated. It is a perfect example of her elitist view that the laws are for the little people...

 

Whilst the conviction would prevent her from holding office, I think the investigation would be disproportionate to prevent her from running as it would not endanger lives, as an example. If she were being investigated for terrorist activities, then I would argue it be proportionate to prevent her from running for office, or purchasing a weapon...

The matter, as I see it, is proportionate response to an investigation.

 

The constitution does not work that way, nor does the presumption of innocence. Consider how much trouble we already have with government using force to do things to citizens who have never been convicted of anything. Asset forfeiture comes to mind.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

We already have a government that steals from us without due process...

 

Does not work what way? You are suggesting that if Clinton was being investigated for terrorist activities that she would be able to run?

I've put my position forward as "I think" and "I would argue". My position has been made clear and I haven't seen any reasonable argument to change it; in fact it's been difficult to keep you on topic.

 

I think a distinction can be made because it's already law (unconstitutional though it is) that gun buyers are required to undergo background checks, and you don't have to be convicted of a crime to not be able to own a gun.

However, one of the reasons you can be denied the right to carry a firearm is if you are under indictment for a crime that might potentially result in a sentence over one year.

 

Running for President must be a fundamental right because Hillary's detractors are getting strict scrutiny.

If you laughed, you went to law school.

 

if you are allowed to take away rights for just being under an investigation remember these people that are on the no fly list and on the terrorist watch list are not indicted they are just being investigated
so why would it be wrong to not allow one being investigated for mishandling classified information to run for office that the office they are running for job is to handle classified information which isn't even a right to be allowed to do

 

the topic is simple. Clinton is apply the only real rule she understands, the rule that says rules do not apply to her. She advocated removing constitutional rights from citizens for simply being investigated by the FBI while not even noticing her already being investigated by the FBI.

 

Sounds like a good rule.

Yet another reason that she will make a great President.

 

Liberals are all for denying Mateen - a registered Democrat - the right to own a gun because he had been investigated by the FBI; had his right to vote been removed, they'd scream bloody murder.

 

Its a felony, so yes, yes it would. If she were CONVICTED.

- - - Updated - - -

Violation of the 5th and 14th amendments, lack of due process of law.

 

Yeah, we are talking about investigation only.

Discrimination? That's my point, there should be none of course. Clinton deserves no more special treatment that you or I. Practice may be different.

 

no, LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW << Made larger because you missed it the first time.
In response to this "I don't believe we have lesser rights; or at least we should not.
The response needs to be proportionate. If someone is being investigated for terrorism, then denying them access to potential terrorist tools seems logical. Preventing them access to food, as a ridiculous example, would not be proportionate."

 

yes, it has to be a terrorist related crime

sorry, just being investigated for using personal email wont lose you your constitutional rights, no matter how much you wish it would

.

 

I was right...here we see another simple minded slogan pretending to be an argument...Just like "it was all about sex' we see a new variation...in the first case the slogan trumped perjury, witness tampering and obstruction today's 'it was all about E-mails' sort of forgets the violations of classified material handling, FOIA processes and State Dept directives...

It must be nice to come from a party where actual reasoning is so very rare.

 

emails = killing 40 people
of course!!! they're completely equal!! why didn't i SEE that???


(for those looking for a definition of 'irony'... type 'irony definition' into google please)

 

'Why you couldn't see that' is clear. To see it you have to look beyond the simple minded E-mail argument to the bit where she sent or received over 2000 classified messages including some considered so classified that lives were at risk if the data was revealed. But that's OK, violating guidance on classified material is a joke. Remember when Sandy Berger was caught sneaking out of a classified space with classified material stuffed down his pants (another Clinton buddy)..

http://www.spectacle.org/0804/wilson.html

It was highly amusing...but, of course, being a Clinton buddy, the laws only sort of applied to good old Sandy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

The rule of law is a joke to the left...Our Chiquita Justice Dept insures Clinton's walk and his party and enablers all spout simple minded slogans like 'emails = killing 40 people
of course!!! they're completely equal!! why didn't i SEE that???'....sad

 

Well said. Do your best to repeat this to everybody you can. So will I.

 

Lol, sorry . Yes, exacty. "Arbitrary" is the key word in the clause. It's a get out to say that we can deny you going for the job if we believe it's appropriate. We can't stop you getting food as that would be arbitrary and disproportionate.