View Full Version : Wait, He has rights as an American (read before posting about the arrest of "Suspect #2:)
Great-Kazoo
04-20-2013, 07:12
Yes or NO?? Lets not get too long winded Y - N
Myself IF they are known terrorist ask away, the flip side, he is a Citizen.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/next-for-bombing-suspect-high-value-detainee-interrogation-group/
Anticipating that Tsarnaev may be in a condition to be questioned, expect the activation of the president’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG).
The group, set up in 2009, is made up of agents from the FBI, CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. They have been on standby waiting for the moment the suspect was taken in.
According to the FBI, the HIG’s “mission is to gather and apply the nation’s best resources to collect intelligence from key terror suspects in order to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.”
I like some of the "Quotes / Comments" I know the Obama Fan base is up in arms.
If his is a US Citizen this is wrong and somebody has to step down for not respecting the constitution.
Which of you posted this?
According to the link- they are ONLY allowed to ask him about bombs that may still be at large, how to disarm them, and whether they’re active. It’s not a violation of rights, as he can- and will, most likely- invoke his right to an attorney at some point. The Exception is to contain an emergency situation for the safety of the public and law-enforcement. They cannot ask him where he got his supplies, why he did it, or anything else that is not of immediate threat to the public. They can’t even ask him if *HE* was the one who set them, created them, or blew them up. However, those spouting: “he shouldn’t have rights and such”- extremely ignorant and naive. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, does not decide whether a Constitutional Law has been broken by whether or not you’re an evil terrorist- they go solely, and only, on the court’s due process. You start setting dangerous precedences of stripping rights away from a citizen, and next thing you know *you’ll* be the one detained without any rights (whether you’re guilty or not). Try to see the larger picture of what you’re spewing- not just the small point at the end of your nose
sneakerd
04-20-2013, 07:21
I thought they were legal residents and NOT citizens?
I thought they were legal residents and NOT citizens?
The media has been reporting that the younger one (suspect 2) was granted citizenship on sept. 11.
Great-Kazoo
04-20-2013, 07:26
The media has been reporting that the younger one (suspect 2) was granted citizenship on sept. 11.
So does the MSM rally around O and support this way of questioning, OR do they remain Silent? Blitzer, madcow, matthhews, all of CNN and PMSNBC , Sirota etc. What will their OP ED's read like?
wctriumph
04-20-2013, 07:31
Citizen? He better hope that he is not a citizen. Non-citizens seen to have more rights than actual natural citizens.
Yes, if you are guilty the courts should just be a formality. If we don't hold this standard the whole Constitution is blown.
DavieD55
04-20-2013, 07:37
Not exactly the answer you're looking for but The MS media is doing nothing but reporting in a way to keep people in a state of absolute confusion.
Bailey Guns
04-20-2013, 07:41
Fuck him. He's an unlawful enemy combatant. Mirandize away, waterboard him till he begs to talk, read him his "rights" while he's waterboarded, put him before a military tribunal then hang him.
Now...I don't necessarily like the idea of the gov't setting up some sort of work-around to the constitutional rights of US citizens. But as far as I'm concerned he's renounced his citizenship and apparently sworn allegiance to Islam, then declared war on the US. Get whatever information is needed and kill him. I'd be OK with that in this case.
It's not like this guy was just arrested for shoplifting.
n8tive97
04-20-2013, 07:49
Yes
As for the media, it really pisses me off that these outlets have no integrity, reporting on stuff that they have no proof of, etc. and now they want to make sure everyone follows the rules?!?!? Fawk them..
He supposedly hasn't been Mirandized yet. If the gov't screws this up and has the case thrown out for usurping his rights as a citizen, would anyone be shocked? On another note, I hope the boat owner walking his dog gets that $50k reward. Despite the thousands of LEOs, he's the one who found the suspect.
As much as I would love to see his ass waterboarded if he is a citizen he has to have the same rights to a fair trial just as any would.
The law is the law. If the investigators do not follow the law to the letter this case could likely be thrown out.
If he is a citizen then he should be entitled to due process, just like anybody accused of a crime. The constitution was designed to protect us (the citizens) in the most extraordinary situations. What if this guy has been framed? What if the .gov just wanted to close this quickly so they found a fall guy? I don't think that is what happened, but we don't know, hence the due process.
If LE and prosecutors were perfect and never made mistakes we wouldn't need these protections. Regardless of how egregious the offense, due process has to take place. Otherwise come July 2nd they can just come lock us all up for having magazines exceeding 15 rounds.
Bailey Guns
04-20-2013, 08:25
Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31724.pdf)
It's a pretty long read but has some very applicable and interesting information if you're into this sort of legal issue. Some of you (I was) might be surprised by some of the court findings re: rights of US citizens committing acts of war against the US.
So does the MSM rally around O and support this way of questioning, OR do they remain Silent? Blitzer, madcow, matthhews, all of CNN and PMSNBC , Sirota etc. What will their OP ED's read like?
That depends on whichever way Obama's handlers want them to go.
Fuck him. He's an unlawful enemy combatant. Mirandize away, waterboard him till he begs to talk, read him his "rights" while he's waterboarded, put him before a military tribunal then hang him.
Now...I don't necessarily like the idea of the gov't setting up some sort of work-around to the constitutional rights of US citizens. But as far as I'm concerned he's renounced his citizenship and apparently sworn allegiance to Islam, then declared war on the US. Get whatever information is needed and kill him. I'd be OK with that in this case.
It's not like this guy was just arrested for shoplifting.
Why not just try him for treason?
johngraves2
04-20-2013, 08:33
I find this whole "in cases of national security" bit a shame. thats a slippery slope and something im sure obama wants. they can just arrest anyone they want to and not give them their rights (if they are a citizen). so will this lead to arresting citizens without just cause? will they start detaining citizens without the right to a speedy and fair trial because of national security? Most citizens know their rights when arrested, but it is the law that they have to be read to you.
And another thing, how were all these police/swat/DHS/Feds able to go door to door and search every house looking for the guy. did they have a warrant for every house? or did each homeowner give permission to search? What would have happened if someone said no i already searched my house he isn't here, you can't come in.
Yes. You never know when you may be declared an enemy combatant/terrorist. It seems that the definitions can have a rather large window of interpretation
Bailey Guns
04-20-2013, 08:45
Yes. You never know when you may be declared an enemy combatant/terrorist. It seems that the definitions can have a rather large window of interpretation
Well, I'd say your chances of that happening are just about non-existent if you don't go around waging war against the US. You know, like detonating bombs and such in the middle of Boston.
Bailey Guns
04-20-2013, 08:46
And another thing, how were all these police/swat/DHS/Feds able to go door to door and search every house looking for the guy. did they have a warrant for every house? or did each homeowner give permission to search? What would have happened if someone said no i already searched my house he isn't here, you can't come in.
Covered at length/beat to death in another thread.
Great-Kazoo
04-20-2013, 08:47
I find this whole "in cases of national security" bit a shame. thats a slippery slope and something im sure obama wants. they can just arrest anyone they want to and not give them their rights (if they are a citizen). so will this lead to arresting citizens without just cause? will they start detaining citizens without the right to a speedy and fair trial because of national security? Most citizens know their rights when arrested, but it is the law that they have to be read to you.
And another thing, how were all these police/swat/DHS/Feds able to go door to door and search every house looking for the guy. did they have a warrant for every house? or did each homeowner give permission to search? What would have happened if someone said no i already searched my house he isn't here, you can't come in.
YO JOHNNYG scroll down a few in GD.
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/100019-House-to-house-Search
Yes. You never know when you may be declared an enemy combatant/terrorist. It seems that the definitions can have a rather large window of interpretation
Interesting no one either noticed or pointed out This law was enacted in 2009.. 1 year after O's in office. OOPS i forgot not only Gitmo but re-visit the patriot act. The left was bamboozled. WHERE'S NYNCO when i want input from some lefty?????????
I find this whole "in cases of national security" bit a shame. thats a slippery slope
It's carte blanche for the government to do whatever it jolly well wants, all it has to do is claim "national security" and society collectively nods in agreement.
johngraves2
04-20-2013, 09:01
Covered at length/beat to death in another thread.
my bad... skipped right over that one.
Well, I'd say your chances of that happening are just about non-existent if you don't go around waging war against the US. You know, like detonating bombs and such in the middle of Boston.
Its a good thing the founders were'nt waging a war against their own government otherwise they'd be considered terrorists. Think of it as a wall... They can keep the bad guys out but they can keep you in.
But your right.. Just keep changing the law and definitions as you see fit and everything will work out for you.... As long as your guy is in power.
Bailey Guns
04-20-2013, 09:21
Prior to 9/11/01 we didn't need laws and procedures to cover war against non-traditional armies. Things change whether you like it or not. I don't really see a constitutional conflict with detaining this guy as an unlawful enemy combatant. It's not the government's fault he did what he did in the current environment.
Nothing like throwing the law out the window because of the crime. When you wish the government to just say Fuck-it we are gonna do what we want because we can and want to. Well you reap what you sow.
Cylinder Head
04-20-2013, 10:00
He still has his Miranda rights, he just doesn't get them READ to him under this clause as it is designed for immediate threats (think Jack Bauer 24). Whether we like it or not he is still a US citizen. His brother, who was shot and ran over, wasn't.
His brother, who was shot and ran over, wasn't.
Which is unfortunate... since he would have been game for interrogation.. and would have probably had more information to give than the younger brother.
Cylinder Head
04-20-2013, 10:18
Absolutely, having read #2's twitter, he's just a stoner and an Obama supporter.
Prior to 9/11/01 we didn't need laws and procedures to cover war against non-traditional armies. Things change whether you like it or not. I don't really see a constitutional conflict with detaining this guy as an unlawful enemy combatant. It's not the government's fault he did what he did in the current environment.
The problem I see with this is that he's a naturalized US citizen, apprehended on US soil. Unless and until he is stripped of that citizenship, he unfortunately enjoys the protections of our Constitution, which includes the right to a trial before punishment is meted out. Arguing that he is an enemy combatant places the .gov in a position to apply that designation to anyone they choose for the purposes of political expediency.
I seem to remember the OKC bomber getting what he deserved and we did it with out special definitions and special clauses.
ScooterCO
04-20-2013, 12:05
^^ This is want I was thinking as well.
Admittly I say burn the mf er. But freedom lost will not be regained.
Mick-Boy
04-20-2013, 12:22
Those of you calling for Due Process to be thrown out the window should take a hard look at the doors this opens (wider). DHS (2009) has already declared right wingers and veterans (especially of OIF/OEF) to be potential domestic terrorists (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf). The NDAA of 2012 has already provided for the indefinite detention of American citizens (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf). It's not that much of a stretch to see these definitions being pushed even further.
The shithead is an American Citizen. Get him a lawyer, try him, then throw him in a hole for the rest of his life. Just like we would with any other American that runs off the tracks.
As much as I would like to see him get punched up like the meat he is ala rocky I have to also cast in for giving him a trial. If one right is thrown away, they all are.
bigshane
04-20-2013, 12:30
Yes or NO?? Lets not get too long winded Y - N
Yes
clublights
04-20-2013, 14:20
He's a citizen .............. And should be afforded all protections given to a citizen . it's what the USA is based on for gods sake !
like someone pointed out before
We got tried and killed the OKC bomber without breaking the laws why do we need to mess with them to fry this fuckstick ?
Yes, The Constitution outlines his rights as a citizen.
but because we are a nation of laws not emotions every
American citizen should get a fair trial , after all its the american way .
even John Adams represented the British
UncleDave
04-20-2013, 17:54
The laws of treason cover this. After being convicted of treason, citizenship can be stripped and you can treat him as an enemy combatant off to Gitmo and water boarding and whole happy package. But the bill of rights, are rights GUARANTEED non negotiable.
brokenscout
04-20-2013, 19:38
Yes
Honest question, where does treason factor into this? Heinous crime against the public at a public event yes. But where is national security involved? (If a bomb was set to get to a military / gov installation or function I could see it.)
Great-Kazoo
04-20-2013, 19:44
Well The MSM and other liberals, in and out of .gov are really upset over the whole deal. Now they know how we as gun owners feel, too bad it will never sink in.
centrarchidae
04-20-2013, 20:15
This is America. We don't go pissing all over the Constitution just because someone did something frightening and violent and evil.
At least, we shouldn't.
Besides, it looks like Miranda is mis-understood. Interrogating someone who is in custody does indeed violate Miranda. However, the remedy is that evidence resulting from the illegal interrogation is just inadmissible at trial. Okay, mostly inadmissible. I think it can still be brought in for impeachment purposes. Evidence which isn't fruit of that particular poisonous tree is still admissible, and the case doesn't get thrown out unless there wouldn't be any case at all without the illegally-collected evidence.
If it were up to me, he'd be charged and tried under applicable Massachusetts state laws, as a common criminal, and no different from some bullshit little insignificant hood rat. We would not even acknowlege him as being any different or more special than that.
Show of hands: Who here, honestly, trusts Barry Hussein Soetoro and Eric Holder with the legal authority to sidestep the Constitution?
Kraven251
04-20-2013, 20:43
Yes. However, if they do not use any of the information gathered from the questioning against him at trial, it doesn't matter. Given the evidence that is already present without hearing a single word from the suspect or using anything he has voiced after his arrest, I still think the case is pretty solid.
Now using that information to make additional arrests later all falls under the fruit of the poison tree, so there won't be any negotiating when those warrants are served.
Do cops even read the Miranda rights anymore? I thought SCOTUS ruled they no longer were required to. Even before that, all they usually did was just check the box on the form saying the suspect "had been advised of his rights" and nobody cared unless it was a teenaged first offender from a good family that could afford a real attorney.
So... Are we sure they did this? Or is this a scape goat, put a face with a crime kind of thing?
This is America. We don't go pissing all over the Constitution just because someone did something frightening and violent and evil.
At least, we shouldn't.
Besides, it looks like Miranda is mis-understood. Interrogating someone who is in custody does indeed violate Miranda. However, the remedy is that evidence resulting from the illegal interrogation is just inadmissible at trial. Okay, mostly inadmissible. I think it can still be brought in for impeachment purposes. Evidence which isn't fruit of that particular poisonous tree is still admissible, and the case doesn't get thrown out unless there wouldn't be any case at all without the illegally-collected evidence.
If it were up to me, he'd be charged and tried under applicable Massachusetts state laws, as a common criminal, and no different from some bullshit little insignificant hood rat. We would not even acknowlege him as being any different or more special than that.
Show of hands: Who here, honestly, trusts Barry Hussein Soetoro and Eric Holder with the legal authority to sidestep the Constitution?
Not saying I agree with it, but they were talking about it on FNC last night just after the arrest (Shepherd I believe it was that said it) that he will not be marandized right now, which is allowed under some emergency/exigent privilege, didn't catch exactly what, I'm thinking NDAA or Patriot Act. The emotionally charged side of me thinks he shouldn't be told he has the right to remain silent, but the logical side says everyone deserves their rights and a fair shake, regardless... remember kids, innocent until proven guilty. Make an exception here and there and they'll make exceptions every time.
Great-Kazoo
04-20-2013, 21:39
Not saying I agree with it, but they were talking about it on FNC last night just after the arrest (Shepherd I believe it was that said it) that he will not be marandized right now, which is allowed under some emergency/exigent privilege, didn't catch exactly what, I'm thinking NDAA or Patriot Act. The emotionally charged side of me thinks he shouldn't be told he has the right to remain silent, but the logical side says everyone deserves their rights and a fair shake, regardless... remember kids, innocent until proven guilty. Make an exception here and there and they'll make exceptions every time.
That only applies in court. In lock up, unless you lawyer up, ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.
DingleBerns
04-20-2013, 21:46
Do cops even read the Miranda rights anymore? I thought SCOTUS ruled they no longer were required to. Even before that, all they usually did was just check the box on the form saying the suspect "had been advised of his rights" and nobody cared unless it was a teenaged first offender from a good family that could afford a real attorney.
I hope that was a joke. BTW I love this quote "you can't arrest me, you haven't even read me my rights!" ha watch me.
Flatline
04-20-2013, 22:12
Yes.
theGinsue
04-20-2013, 23:57
No.
i haven't read the whole thread because I'm too tired. It's possible someone already said this.
I think it would be easy enough for the government to make the case this terrorist became a citizen under fraudulent pretenses. If they successfully make this case, his citizenship could not only be revoked, but could be totally annulled - as if it never happened.
From that point, he's simply an enemy combatant without any rights afforded by citizenship.
centrarchidae
04-21-2013, 05:10
Do cops even read the Miranda rights anymore? I thought SCOTUS ruled they no longer were required to. Even before that, all they usually did was just check the box on the form saying the suspect "had been advised of his rights" and nobody cared unless it was a teenaged first offender from a good family that could afford a real attorney.
Cops were never required to read anybody anything, at the time of arrest.
The whole issue behind Miranda is that any admissions made to police need to be made voluntarily. Advisement mainly just helps a prosecutor prove that the admission really was voluntary.
The Miranda advisement is required when someone is in custody, and is to be interrogated. Both of those things are required before an advisement can be required. Which means that they're read when custodial interrogation occurs.
If you mean the SCOTUS ruling that I think you do, the Court held that a police officer could not be held personally civilly liable for failure to advise. The reason for that being, the remedy for taking an involuntary statement is to prevent the statement from being admitted into evidence. Police officers don't admit a damn thing into evidence. It's a judge who rules on admissiblity and any violation of a suspect's rights occurs when a judge admits something which should not have been admitted. Which means that the officer's failure didn't actually do anything.
As for your third sentence about checking boxes and a lawyer from a good family, I don't even know where to begin. Were you at Civic Center Park yesterday when you wrote that?
If he's a citizen, yes. I believe there is a procedure in place to revoke citizenship which needs to be invoked asap.
Not sure if you've all read much but he will likely be charged before he is ever questioned.
Apparently he put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. It blew the back of his throat out but did not kill him. He is currently intubated and sedated. They do not know if he will be able to speak again because of the trauma to his throat.
SA Friday
04-21-2013, 10:45
He is not a member or another countries military. He is NOT a military combatant. A terrorist, maybe, but that has to be proven. Claiming it doesn't make it so. So, give him all the protections our rights provide a citizen and put together a solid case for prosecution. The civility of a country isn't measured on how they deal with citizens day to day. It's measured on how it deals with its accused. It's irrelevant he came from another country. Treat him like McVeigh.
UrbanWolf
04-21-2013, 10:51
Once you did things to physically harm others you have prove yourself inhuman, you can be stripped of you human rights if necessary. That's what I think.
Great-Kazoo
04-21-2013, 12:07
Once you did things to physically harm others you have prove yourself inhuman, you can be stripped of you human rights if necessary. That's what I think.
yet violent felons are coddled in the prison system daily, released due to records OOPS and other misc things.
Define Physically harm. beating you within an inch of your life, Slapping you because you've gone in to shock and need that to bring you out of it? While one is a no brainer. the other in today's PC+ climate can and sometimes is interpreted to be an attack.
As long as he maintains citizenship read him his rights.
The dilemma the left has is Obama Signed off on the No Miranda before being Questioned under an 09 law. He also has not come out and voiced an opinion other than "Get answers now, read Miranda later"
UrbanWolf
04-21-2013, 12:33
yet violent felons are coddled in the prison system daily, released due to records OOPS and other misc things.
Define Physically harm. beating you within an inch of your life, Slapping you because you've gone in to shock and need that to bring you out of it? While one is a no brainer. the other in today's PC+ climate can and sometimes is interpreted to be an attack.
As long as he maintains citizenship read him his rights.
The dilemma the left has is Obama Signed off on the No Miranda before being Questioned under an 09 law. He also has not come out and voiced an opinion other than "Get answers now, read Miranda later"
Should have said physically harm result in serve injuries or death.
Prior to 9/11/01 we didn't need laws and procedures to cover war against non-traditional armies. Things change whether you like it or not. I don't really see a constitutional conflict with detaining this guy as an unlawful enemy combatant. It's not the government's fault he did what he did in the current environment.
I guess it's all good as long as you are not on "The list". Throw'em to the wolves without Due process. The Brits used to do this in the name of terrorism. Those terrorists were the forefathers of the Constitution. You claim to love the Constitution but agree to let it be trampled because the media have you convinced he was guilty. Sad. Everybody should have their day in court or you are just supporting a tyranny you happen to agree with. If he is guilty, prove it. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is a foundation of the Constitution. He probably is guilty but not until he has had his day in court.
I agree with Jim, Hound and many others. We should never weaken our rights out of fear or anger, because once we compromise that, whats next?
So, does anyone know what actually ties him to the bombing?
Don't waive your rights with your flags.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 15:42
I guess it's all good as long as you are not on "The list". Throw'em to the wolves without Due process. The Brits used to do this in the name of terrorism. Those terrorists were the forefathers of the Constitution. You claim to love the Constitution but agree to let it be trampled because the media have you convinced he was guilty. Sad. Everybody should have their day in court or you are just supporting a tyranny you happen to agree with. If he is guilty, prove it. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is a foundation of the Constitution. He probably is guilty but not until he has had his day in court.
As many others do you choose to let emotion rather than logic dictate what you say. There is a legal precedent (with at least one case currently pending) for treating US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. I simply choose to look at the facts and make suggestions based on them. I get the whole "he's a citizen" thing. But I'm also capable of looking at other options based on supported legal precedent. If you choose not to, that's fine and I can respect your opinion.
What I don't respect is the over-the-top hyperbole of your post.
Just because there is a pending legal precedent doesn't mean its right or constitutional.
Government just got a precedent to fine you if you refuse to purchase something for merely existing as a human... Doesn't mean its right though.
brokenscout
04-21-2013, 16:12
This is a test run for whats to come, [tinhat][tinhat][tinhat]
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 16:18
On April 3, 2006, the Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari), to hear (Jose) Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision. It left the 4th Circuit court's ruling that the president had the power to designate and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.
Hound, I'd like you to explain to me how the highest court in the land, empowered by the US Constitution, has come to the above conclusion. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you believe the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and you believe the US Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to hear and decide cases and judge them based on the Constitution, then you have to believe the president can designate US citizens (under rare and unusual circumstances which I certainly think applies here) as enemy combatants.
Not only did the SCOTUS reject Padilla's case but they rejected it again later on.
Supreme Court Denies Appeals to Seven Gitmo Detainees and Jose Padilla (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/11699-supreme-court-denies-appeals-to-seven-gitmo-detainees-and-jose-padilla)In his suit, Padilla claimed that as a U.S. citizen captured within the United States, he was unconstitutionally designated as an "enemy combatant," and alleged a range of constitutional violations arising from his detention at a military prison in South Carolina.
Additionally, Padilla said that he was denied access to legal counsel in contravention of his civil rights as guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Padilla also asserted that he was denied access to the courts in violation of his constitutional rights as set out in Article III, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and that the government of the United States refused to permit his writ of habeas corpus in violation of the the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of Article I.
Further allegations made in Padilla’s amended complaint included being confined in conditions that were “cruel and unusual;” being tortured during interrogations; and being denied his right to freely exercise the religion of his choice, among other similar claims of actionable deprivation of constitutionally-protected civil rights.
As relief, Padilla sought only de minimis pecuniary damages, but he had asked that the court declare that his designation as an enemy combatant, his subsequent detention, as well as his treatment while in detention were all unconstitutional and that the government be enjoined from categorizing him as an “enemy combatant” in the future.
In his petition to the Supreme Court that was rejected Monday, Padilla asked the justices to decide whether he has standing to bring his suit, specifically the filing asks if "federal officials responsible for the torture of an American citizen on American soil may be sued for damages under the Constitution."
You may not agree, and that's fine. But to tell me I'm some sort of tyrant trampling on the Constitution is flat out bullshit. Or maybe you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.
So I will say this again for those of you who don't get it: There is binding legal precedent for the Commander in Chief to designate certain US citizens arrested in the United States as enemy combatants.
SA Friday
04-21-2013, 16:41
There was legal precedence for slavery in this country for a couple hundred years too. SCOTUS not only ruled on it, they supported it on multiple occasions.
There is a moral dilemma in taking the stance that it's OK to overlook the citizenship of a US person. How it this OK with Padilla and possibly these two idiots and not McVeigh? Motive and association? As far as we know, stating either would be speculative at this point. Where is the line? What's the difference between McVeigh's disgust for the Govt's handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge and Padilla's disgust in the Govt's handling of the middle east? When will the Govt use these case precedence to imprison those they deem fit the McVeigh mold indefinitely and with their rights suspended? When will it be gun owners and preppers?
Be careful Bailey. You might get to see what you are arguing for here, and that would be a tragedy. Like rounding up a bunch of citizens and putting them in detainment camps suspending their individual rights because they are feared by their own Govt.
Hound, I'd like you to explain to me how the highest court in the land, empowered by the US Constitution, has come to the above conclusion. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you believe the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and you believe the US Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to hear and decide cases and judge them based on the Constitution, then you have to believe the president can designate US citizens (under rare and unusual circumstances which I certainly think applies here) as enemy combatants.
Not only did the SCOTUS reject Padilla's case but they rejected it again later on.
You may not agree, and that's fine. But to tell me I'm some sort of tyrant trampling on the Constitution is flat out bullshit. Or maybe you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.
So I will say this again for those of you who don't get it: There is binding legal precedent for the Commander in Chief to designate certain US citizens arrested in the United States as enemy combatants.
It's pretty simple. The Constitution states clearly the right to Habeas Corpus, the right to be heard. Through out Americas history we have suspended this right and under Bush we did it again. That does not make it "Right". Those previous times, Lincoln during the Civil war, Japanese internment camps (of which we had one right here in Denver) and now Gitmo have or will be found by history to be flat wrong. That is your precedent. Our forefathers had to deal with a monarchy that could through fiat remove a persons rights. No court or apeal just a tyrant saying because I think you are guilty..... They didn't like it and specifically wrote into the Constitution that everyman should have his day in court. Even the Nazi's got Nuremberg but no you think the American media is closer to justice than a full court. That is what we decry in the current administration and BTW in Bush's administration. While you agree with
looking at other options it comes down to circumventing the same Constitution you hold up to protect you second amendment rights. If he is guilty, then prove it. Not in the media, not in some secret bunker, not in Rendition, not in the dark but in the open. Let him see his accuser, the evidence and have his day in court to refute or plead guilty. Then, and only then, take him out back and hang him just as we did at Nuremberg.
Great-Kazoo
04-21-2013, 17:02
So, does anyone know what actually ties him to the bombing?
Sarcasm, right?
multiple video's and still pics of the brothers in the area and on the spot where the bombs were dropped.
Surveillance video from the MIT area of the gun fiight etc
http://news.yahoo.com/police-bombing-suspects-planned-more-attacks-201956630.html
Here's the scary part
After the two brothers engaged in a gun battle with police early Friday, authorities found many unexploded homemade bombs at the scene, along with more than 250 rounds of ammunition.
We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene — the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had
http://news.yahoo.com/mass-gov-video-shows-bomb-suspect-dodging-blast-142946907.html
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 17:06
This isn't slavery and times change. And there have been a lot of SCOTUS decisions with which I've disagreed. But the bottom line is this: if you want to make a Constitutional argument I find it a little disingenuous to claim something goes against the Constitution when it's been upheld (or in the Padilla case, upheld by default when they refused to hear the case) by the highest court in the land empowered by the Constitution to hear cases.
And I don't see a moral dilemma in this case at all. Granted...this kid is obviously young and made some really bad choices. So what? People make bad choices all the time. They have to live with those choices and face the consequences. As should this knucklehead. He killed, or was an accomplice in killing, 4 people, maiming and/or seriously wounding hundreds of others and putting the lives of hundreds of others in jeopardy by committing a terrorist act. He chose to do these things in the current political climate where terrorists and terrorism are being fought in a worldwide battle. It shouldn't have been a secret to him that he might face some pretty harsh punishment if caught committing these acts.
I really don't anticipate that I'll be doing any such thing so I'm not too worried about the US gov't labeling me as an enemy combatant. I do believe the US gov't has far exceeded it's Constitutional charter on many levels. But I also don't believe every conspiracy theory that comes along.
And as far as McVeigh goes, the same federal statutes that are in place now that gives the POTUS certain authority were not in place at the time McVeigh committed his crimes. That's the simple, but straightforward answer. Just like laws changed that outlawed slavery.
For the first time here... I am disgusted with some members....
Live with bad choices that this knucklehead made??? We have seen some sloppy video and have the word of some LEO agencies that he is the bomber. Do you not want to at least hear evidential argument and testimony before he is crucified? I have seen videos of them near the crime scene, and with backpacks, but nothing affirmatively planting a bomb. Yes, I think they have done it, but I think they need to have it proven in a court. Otherwise who is to say that conjecture didn't seal the death penalty on him?
How do we jump to the "He did it, treat him as a terrorist" without negating the fact that we are now trusting here-say as far as we know to prove his guilt?
Awful, and shameful.
I totally trust the gov never to lie or set up a scape goat.... what could ever go wrong?
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 17:38
It's pretty simple. The Constitution states clearly the right to Habeas Corpus, the right to be heard. Through out Americas history we have suspended this right and under Bush we did it again. That does not make it "Right". Those previous times, Lincoln during the Civil war, Japanese internment camps (of which we had one right here in Denver) and now Gitmo have or will be found by history to be flat wrong. That is your precedent. Our forefathers had to deal with a monarchy that could through fiat remove a persons rights. No court or apeal just a tyrant saying because I think you are guilty..... They didn't like it and specifically wrote into the Constitution that everyman should have his day in court. Even the Nazi's got Nuremberg but no you think the American media is closer to justice than a full court. That is what we decry in the current administration and BTW in Bush's administration. While you agree with it comes down to circumventing the same Constitution you hold up to protect you second amendment rights. If he is guilty, then prove it. Not in the media, not in some secret bunker, not in Rendition, not in the dark but in the open. Let him see his accuser, the evidence and have his day in court to refute or plead guilty. Then, and only then, take him out back and hang him just as we did at Nuremberg.
Or maybe you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.
So I will say this again for those of you who don't get it: There is binding legal precedent for the Commander in Chief to designate certain US citizens arrested in the United States as enemy combatants.
You either believe in the Constitution or you don't.
I'm not talking about past abuses or ancient kings or little men from Mars. I'm talking about today...here and now and recent instances. You may not like it and your dogmatic idealism may prevent you from thinking it's right. I get that. But two US Supreme courts and several justices disagree with you.
Furthermore, holding someone as an enemy combatant doesn't mean they lose all Constitutional protections. They are still entitled to Habeus Corpus and other rights. If you'd read the information to which I linked and attempted to really educate yourself a bit rather than just saying stupid shit like "Even the Nazi's got Nuremberg but no you think the American media is closer to justice than a full court", you might have noticed that. But no, you've gone and got your emotions and panties in a twist because of what you think you know and your emotional attachments to the same.
And FYI, the Nuremberg trials were not based on the US Constitution and didn't have anything to do with designating a US citizen as an enemy combatant so I'm really having a hard time deciding why they're relevant to this discussion. Or again, maybe you really don't know what you're talking about. That would explain it.
Great-Kazoo
04-21-2013, 17:40
For the first time here... I am disgusted with some members....
Live with bad choices that this knucklehead made??? We have seen some sloppy video and have the word of some LEO agencies that he is the bomber. Do you not want to at least hear evidential argument and testimony before he is crucified? I have seen videos of them near the crime scene, and with backpacks, but nothing affirmatively planting a bomb. Yes, I think they have done it, but I think they need to have it proven in a court. Otherwise who is to say that conjecture didn't seal the death penalty on him?
How do we jump to the "He did it, treat him as a terrorist" without negating the fact that we are now trusting here-say as far as we know to prove his guilt?
Awful, and shameful.
There are too many "coincidences " putting the 2 at the scene, the 7-11? ATM, on campus, in multiple gun battles, here, there and everywhere. Hiding in a boat riddled with bullet holes. For me, those are either 2 (ok 1 now) guilty folks OR one hell of a .gov conspiracy.
I started the thread asking Yea or Nay regarding Miranda. I believe he should have been read his rights. He is an American citizen. He, as everyone of us deserve at least that mush from our country. No Matter how despicable and heinous the crimes he committed. Yet the Big Kahuna signed off on the NO Miranda.
The flip side is, Once read his rights. How many Attorneys do you / we think would take his case Pro Bone because of their own personal Anti-American agenda?? Lest not open that can o worms here.
Singlestack
04-21-2013, 17:53
I'm in favor of Miranda rights here. I realize this may case be very clear-cut, but the next one may well not be. Given other behaviors by (for example) Big Sis and DHS labeling returning vets, gun owners, Christians, and those owning a 7-day food supply as possible terrorists, I could imagine an American Citizen good guy/gal initially accused of such a crime (coincidence, rush to judgement, etc) and stripped of some very important rights. Couple this with some in government who are completely okey dokey with limiting or ignoring individual rights and I think the possibility of abuse in the future is not only possible, but extremely probable.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 17:53
For the first time here... I am disgusted with some members....
Live with bad choices that this knucklehead made??? We have seen some sloppy video and have the word of some LEO agencies that he is the bomber. Do you not want to at least hear evidential argument and testimony before he is crucified? I have seen videos of them near the crime scene, and with backpacks, but nothing affirmatively planting a bomb. Yes, I think they have done it, but I think they need to have it proven in a court. Otherwise who is to say that conjecture didn't seal the death penalty on him?
How do we jump to the "He did it, treat him as a terrorist" without negating the fact that we are now trusting here-say as far as we know to prove his guilt?
Awful, and shameful.
FFS. Comprehension of the argument is key to understanding the argument.
I made the claim he could be held as an enemy combatant. The president has the statutory authority to designate certain US citizens as such and that authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Twice. I've provided evidence to support that. Others have claimed he can't be designated an enemy combatant. Their only proof to support that is basically to say "we've made mistakes in the past" and you're only proof in refuting it is to say in so many words you're disappointed, it's shameful and awful and he should be proven guilty.
Designating this person as an enemy combatant doesn't mean we take him out back and shoot him. Jesus Christ...it just means we treat him differently than a common criminal.
It doesn't mean he won't get his day in court. It means he's held and tried under different rules.
You can disagree with the theory all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Right now it's the law of the land.
The bottom line is I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 18:16
This entire discussion is probably academic anyway. It sounds like they're just going to try him in federal court anyway. That'll be the easiest route and will avoid a lot of controversy.
FFS. Comprehension of the argument is key to understanding the argument.
I made the claim he could be held as an enemy combatant. The president has the statutory authority to designate certain US citizens as such and that authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Twice.
No you have not. The Supreme Court not hearing something does not mean they have upheld it. It means they don't have enough to pass judement on it at that time. They do that a lot and it is not the same as 'upholding' a law or setting a precedent.
Further more; the idea of 'enemy combatant' is to strip a person for whatever reason they have of claiming Habeas Corpus. If you don't understand Habeas Corpus and its importance in the Constitution I would say you need to read more than just the first two Amendments or even just the Amendments. I don't support ANY idea that ANY single person (president, prime minister, dictator, supreme commander, etc) has the right to label a person and take away their right to unbiased judicial oversight. That was un-American when the Constitution was written, as it was during the Civil war, in country's we have over thrown (Germany, Japan, etc) and today when we fight today's 'terrorists'! This is not an 'emotional' issue any more than defending my right to bear arms so trying to deflect using this is a poor strategy.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 19:00
Further more; the idea of 'enemy combatant' is to strip a person for whatever reason they have of claiming Habeas Corpus. If you don't understand Habeas Corpus and its importance in the Constitution I would say you need to read more than just the first two Amendments or even just the Amendments.
Boumediene v. Bush
On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations that the detainees were enemy combatants justified a classification of "enemy combatant".
So what part of it don't I understand again?
I can't believe I saw a 2nd amendment advocate, say, "Times change"
Pfft.... That's the same argument used against the 2nd...
Bailey: I really don't want to get into any flame wars here. I just believe that all people should be heard, even those that have done heinous things. The transparency and 'blind' (or at least as blind as we can get it) justice is important to who we are. It is a part of the checks and balances within the Constitution that protects us all from tyrants, over reaching and even ourselves. I doubt you really disagree with these statements?
Your quote supports this, correct?
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 19:08
And I said that in context of the Supreme Court upholding the idea of slavery. Some of you people have some serious comprehension issues.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 19:19
Bailey: I really don't want to get into any flame wars here. I just believe that all people should be heard, even those that have done heinous things. The transparency and 'blind' (or at least as blind as we can get it) justice is important to who we are. It is a part of the checks and balances within the Constitution that protects us all from tyrants, over reaching and even ourselves. I doubt you really disagree with these statements?
Your quote supports this, correct?
Not wanting a war either. And I do believe in checks and balances built into our system. I believe the Supreme Court is part of those checks and balances. So when the Supreme Court says the president has the statutory authority to designate a US citizen as an enemy combatant I believe that to be the law of the land. When the SCOTUS then says that doesn't mean the detained individual forfeits the right of habeus corpus I believe that to be the law of the land.
Some of what the legislature and the courts decide I don't like. But I still recognize it's the law of the land.
So you are for abortion then
buckeye4rnr
04-21-2013, 19:42
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/apr/20/bill-rights-was-written-dzhokar-tsarnaev/
The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev
TAMPA, April 20, 2013 – 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev is in custody. Assuming that Tsarnaev is indeed guilty of these crimes, a very real threat to public safety has been taken off the streets. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that the Tsarnaev brothers have taken the last vestiges of a free society in America down with them.
The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) was already on life support before this tragedy. Before the dust settled after 9/11, the 4th Amendment had been nullified by the Patriot Act. The 5th and 6th Amendments were similarly abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006 and the 2012 NDAA resolution, which contained a clause allowing the president to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil without due process of law.
Americans had already grown accustomed to having their persons and papers searched at the airport without probable cause and without a warrant supported by oath or affirmation. After a brief, politically-motivated backlash against the Bush Administration, Americans similarly resigned themselves to the government tapping their phones, reading their e-mails and generally spying on them wherever they went. Things were already very, very bad.
They just got a lot worse.
Not only did the militarized domestic law enforcement complex put the City of Boston under martial law, but nobody seems to have found it out of the ordinary, much less outrageous. Yes, a few journalists like libertarian Anthony Gregory raised a finger (http://blog.independent.org/2013/04/19/what-is-the-threshold-for-martial-law/). But, for the most part, nobody seemed to mind that the entire city was under military siege, complete with paramilitary units in full battle gear, battlefield ordinance and tanks. Tanks!
How did we get here? 238 years ago to the day, the inhabitants of the very same city started a war and seceded from their union over a mere infantry brigade attempting to disarm them. Now they cheer those who violate their rights much worse than the British ever did.
When Lee Harvey Oswald was similarly suspected of killing a police officer after assassinating the President of the United States, Dallas was not put under martial law. No tanks rolled through the streets. Oswald was armed at the time of his arrest and attempted to shoot the arresting officer, whose thumb stopped the hammer of Oswald’s pistol from discharging the weapon at point blank range.
It is noteworthy that the military siege was called off several hours before Tsarnaev was captured. In the end, he was found and taken into custody by the same methods that any other criminal has been for most of U.S. history.
So, there was no cause and effect relationship between the state show of power and the apprehension of the suspect.
Now, the DOJ has announced (http://www.thv11.com/news/article/261204/2/Justice-official-No-reading-of-Miranda-rights) that Tsarnaev will not be read his Miranda rights, citing the “public danger” exception in the 5th Amendment. But the language in the amendment doesn’t remotely apply to this situation, nor is it even related to the protection against being a witness against oneself. It reads,
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
First of all, Tsarnaev is not in the Army, Navy or militia. Even if he were, the language would only have applied if Tsarnaev had been observed with the bomb in his hands just before committing the crime. The exception gives law enforcement the power to arrest him without first getting a Grand Jury indictment under those circumstances. It doesn’t release the government from the prohibition against compelling Tsarnaev to be a witness against himself after his arrest, which is the basis for Miranda.
If Tsarnaev is guilty, then the public danger was over once he was arrested. The government has no authority to waive any of its obligations for due process. He should be read his rights and allowed to remain silent without molestation. He should have an arraignment where he is given the opportunity to hear the charges against him and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. If he is unable to afford a lawyer, one should be assigned to him at public expense. His guilt should be decided by a jury of his peers, not the government or the media.
The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev. It wasn’t written for those suspected of minor violations.
The Boston Marathon bombing was a particularly heinous crime. No one with a pulse could help but feel deeply for the parents of an eight-year-old boy killed by this senseless act or the others killed or permanently maimed. Most red-blooded men would have liked nothing better than to have been the one who found Dzhokar Tsarnaev, praying he’d resist arrest.
Those are perfectly healthy feelings, but the awful power of the state is not supposed to be set loose based upon feelings. It is supposed to be restrained by reason. God help us if we forget.
Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. (http://www.tommullen.net/featured/a-return-to-common-sense-reawakening-liberty-in-the-inhabitants-of-america/)
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 19:45
So you are for abortion then
Oh, look. The resident leftist Obama supporter running his suck.
Some of what the legislature and the courts decide I don't like. But I still recognize it's the law of the land.
Apparently you have a comprehension issue, too. But just for the record and to answer your question, I'm not in favor of abortion but recognize it's legal.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 19:49
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/apr/20/bill-rights-was-written-dzhokar-tsarnaev/
Gee. That wasn't full of over-the-top rhetoric at all. Martial law in Boston? Funny. I don't recall that at all.
Do any of you seriously think that sort of commentary does anyone any good at all? That's no different than an anti-gun leftist claiming all guns are only made for killing.
I'd be surprised if half the population even understands exactly what constitutes martial law.
buckeye4rnr
04-21-2013, 20:05
Gee. That wasn't full of over-the-top rhetoric at all. Martial law in Boston? Funny. I don't recall that at all.
Do any of you seriously think that sort of commentary does anyone any good at all? That's no different than an anti-gun leftist claiming all guns are only made for killing.
I'd be surprised if half the population even understands exactly what constitutes martial law.
The Bill of Rights barely still exists and as inconvenient as it is for you, that asshole in Boston has rights so they need to read them to him before some lawyer gets this case thrown out.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 20:08
No, they don't. Miranda only applies during custodial interrogation. If they aren't interrogating him, they don't need to offer him a Miranda advisement. That's LE 101.
buckeye4rnr
04-21-2013, 20:15
They are interrogating him.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-badly-wounded-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-responding-to-questions?lite
johngraves2
04-21-2013, 20:18
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
they say he was going to classes, working out, and going to parties after the bombing......dont even know what to say about that.....just unbelivable.
They also say he is communicating via writing.
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 20:25
They are interrogating him.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-badly-wounded-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-responding-to-questions?lite
Not sure they're interrogating him. The article said he's responding to questions. That could be preliminary questions about his identity, address, and so forth which would be standard stuff early in an investigation. But maybe they are interrogating him.
Gee. That wasn't full of over-the-top rhetoric at all. Martial law in Boston? Funny. I don't recall that at all.
Do any of you seriously think that sort of commentary does anyone any good at all? That's no different than an anti-gun leftist claiming all guns are only made for killing.
I'd be surprised if half the population even understands exactly what constitutes martial law.
The irony here is that they are talking about people like you Bailey. You're the one that will scream you know when these posts keep showing you don't. Keep digging that hole and we will have to watch while people like you take us down it.
Great-Kazoo
04-21-2013, 20:28
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
they say he was going to classes, working out, and going to parties after the bombing......dont even know what to say about that.....just unbelivable.
They also say he is communicating via writing.
John Wayne Gacey, Ted Bundy, need i go on?
If you followed or follow the comments made by those who knew him they went something like this.
"He's always been a nice guy"
"Very friendly"
"Nice young man"
It follows the same shit you hear after a violent crime
"Who would have thought something like this could happen here"
"This was always a quiet neighborhood"
brokenscout
04-21-2013, 20:36
A lot on people do that with any LEO shooting on the forum. I want to see what comes out of this.It could happen to anyone. Gun owners are almost considered terrorists
For the first time here... I am disgusted with some members....
Live with bad choices that this knucklehead made??? We have seen some sloppy video and have the word of some LEO agencies that he is the bomber. Do you not want to at least hear evidential argument and testimony before he is crucified? I have seen videos of them near the crime scene, and with backpacks, but nothing affirmatively planting a bomb. Yes, I think they have done it, but I think they need to have it proven in a court. Otherwise who is to say that conjecture didn't seal the death penalty on him?
How do we jump to the "He did it, treat him as a terrorist" without negating the fact that we are now trusting here-say as far as we know to prove his guilt?
Awful, and shameful.
Beware the quiet ones, eh? This kid does sounds 'normal' but what did he actually do? Did he even understand it or did it snowball due to his brother? I am not condoning any of it but what can cause such a terrible change in a persons course in life?
Bailey Guns
04-21-2013, 20:39
The irony here is that they are talking about people like you Bailey. You're the one that will scream you know when these posts keep showing you don't. Keep digging that hole and we will have to watch while people like you take us down it.
Whatever. It's obvious you can't have an intellectually honest conversation. Whether that's through ignorance or some other reason, I don't know.
muddywings
04-21-2013, 20:43
Yes
Whatever. It's obvious you can't have an intellectually honest conversation. Whether that's through ignorance or some other reason, I don't know.
Hey, we found something we agree on. You don't seem to be able to have an intellectually honest conversation but I will fight for your right to speak your peace and to have trial to defend those views if you are ever on 'the list'. I sincerely hope that is never the case.
sneakerd
04-21-2013, 20:57
Hey Hound- go bark somewhere else- Bailey Guns is one of the more logical people on here and his posts are generally well thought out and way better than my mind can put together. Beyond that- punk-ass Boston bomber should be pulled apart by horses.
Anyone remember Richard Jewell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
The media had him tried, convicted, and sentenced....until...OOPS...he's not actually the bomber, he's a hero...
THIS is why due process needs to be followed.
sneakerd
04-21-2013, 21:03
Come on man- this one is just a tiny bit different. This little Muslim punk did the deed. Do you actually doubt that?
I don't doubt that he did, based mostly on his actions after the fact. But until a prosecutor proves that to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, he is clothed in a presumption of innocence. I would hate for this to be justification for the easy designation of "enemy combatants" based on a religion, heritage, or political affiliation. What happens when say, some nutjob shoots up a shopping mall, and the .gov decides to designate owners of "assault rifles" as enemy combatants...
Come on man- this one is just a tiny bit different. This little Muslim punk did the deed. Do you actually doubt that?
No, it's not different and those 'this is different' arguments are a very slippery slope. If he is guilty then it should be an easy case in court. There is a reason people are 'alleged' to have committed a crime until they are convicted in a court of law. This is the belief a person is innocent until proven guilty. None of us here has ANY proof he did anything. Right now at best we saw a boy walking with a hat and a backpack. Not much to go on really unless you are now believing everything the government tells you. That is all the rest of the proof anybody has at this point. Do I think he is guilty, ya probably but that is different than knowing and is way far from saying he has been convicted. Right now he is only accused until he has his day in court as the founders intended.
Sarcasm, right?
multiple video's and still pics of the brothers in the area and on the spot where the bombs were dropped.
Surveillance video from the MIT area of the gun fiight etc
http://news.yahoo.com/police-bombing-suspects-planned-more-attacks-201956630.html
Here's the scary part
After the two brothers engaged in a gun battle with police early Friday, authorities found many unexploded homemade bombs at the scene, along with more than 250 rounds of ammunition.
We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene — the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had
http://news.yahoo.com/mass-gov-video-shows-bomb-suspect-dodging-blast-142946907.html
Nope, haven't put too much time into it. There was a bombing, more shit, different day... I've actually heard more crap about the conspiracy shit about it than the truth to be honest. I've read through all of this, and didn't you ask for just a yes or no? I didn't follow those rules though either.... Anyway, yes. Thanks for filling me in Jim.
So you are for abortion then
When the hell did you get back?
In before the close because of the crap that nynco brings with him, or her....
Great-Kazoo
04-21-2013, 23:12
Beware the quiet ones, eh? This kid does sounds 'normal' but what did he actually do? Did he even understand it or did it snowball due to his brother? I am not condoning any of it but what can cause such a terrible change in a persons course in life?
What didn't he do ? You fall in to the same trap of" He sounds Normal". BTW: you're classifying him as a kid. He's old enough to vote, join the military, hold a drivers License and Kill people. He's not a kid age wise at all. Then again anyone younger than me is a kid, in that sense of the word.
wctriumph
04-21-2013, 23:29
Read him his rights, arrest him and put him on trial in a court of law. If he is found guilty, bring him to my house, I will save the tax payers a ton of cash taking care of this young man for the rest of his life.
What didn't he do ? You fall in to the same trap of" He sounds Normal". BTW: you're classifying him as a kid. He's old enough to vote, join the military, hold a drivers License and Kill people. He's not a kid age wise at all. Then again anyone younger than me is a kid, in that sense of the word.
Again, I don't condone any actions he took but he was still a kid. 19 years old and his life is over even if his body does not know it yet. Many of those in wars like WWII,Vietnam,etc (and we were not at war with this boy, he could have just gone to school and gotten a job) are really just kids, brave, young, kids sent in to do things they were told to never consider outside of playing with pop guns in the back yard. We all make mistakes and it looks like this kid made mistakes that cost several peoples lives, a country to probably lose more freedoms and to take more innocence from us as we still recover from 9/11. He is a kid that it sounds like followed his older brother into hell. I don't agree with his actions but as with so many of these tragedies, any decent person has to ask why? It was a bunch of people running and a city supporting them in a world of solidarity. What a waste all around. No gain or purpose, only the lose of loved ones for no sain reason.
lead_magnet
04-21-2013, 23:39
I'm amazed at how quick people are even considering throwing due process out the window. WTF guys? So you'll (not everyone, or nearly everyone of course) sit on here and rant and rave about the 2A..but the other ones are okay to twist and bend because we're a little pissed off? I can solve that little dilemma with a quote from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - "Even a goddamn werewolf is entitles to legal council.". So what is the cutoff on how extreme or heinous the crime, for the suspect to no longer be entitled to his rights? Murder? Assault? Possession of a magazine with more than 15 round capacity?
Mick-Boy
04-21-2013, 23:41
Hound - Sorry but no. 19 is not a kid. Immature. Probably. But as Jim noted, he can drive a car, enlist in the military and voice how the country is run. He get's no slack for age. He made his choices and now he gets to reap the consequences.
Hound - Sorry but no. 19 is not a kid. Immature. Probably. But as Jim noted, he can drive a car, enlist in the military and voice how the country is run. He get's no slack for age. He made his choices and now he gets to reap the consequences.
I am not making any excuses for him or thinking he should get leniancy. What I am saying is that every single person on the forum with any age under their belt can remember being around 19 and making mistakes that they look back on with dread. Just because you are 16 and can legally drive does not mean you 'know' how to drive, you're still learning. You also still get the speeding ticket(s). Personally, I am lucky I am alive several times over. I know many people that did not make it past this period in life. Yes, he should pay, and the full price, for his decisions but he is still just a kid. He is a kid who had his whole life in front of him and then he killed. Now his life is over like the 8yr old it looks like he killed. It's just such a waste all around.
Mick-Boy
04-22-2013, 09:24
At 19 I had been a Marine for two years and a fire team leader for one, with deployments to Kosovo and the Horn of Africa. This kid gets no slack from me.
Aloha_Shooter
04-22-2013, 09:48
100 years ago, a 19-year-old man was most likely the head of his household. 16 year olds were the bulk of Pony Express riders. It figures the same liberal media and big government types that want to dismiss college antics as "maturation" or "high jinks" yet want to give sex education to kids in elementary school would refer to him as a "boy" or say he was "misled" by his elder brother.
losttrail
04-22-2013, 10:02
If an American citizen performs this type of crime, all rights should be forfeited. You viloate the rights of fellow citizens, your rights are gone. End of story.
Aloha_Shooter
04-22-2013, 10:09
For that matter, there should be a judicial review of his naturalization. In my opinion, any naturalized citizen conducting an attack against the country like this has already forfeited that citizenship. You have to establish guilt in the attack before revocation but we shouldn't have any reservations about treating him as a hostile foreigner once he's convicted.
RblDiver
04-22-2013, 10:09
The part of me that hates his guts wants to say no...
...but my head says yes. If he weren't a citizen, absolutely make him an enemy combatant...but he is a citizen, so he must be fairly tried.
That said, my understanding, as has been pointed out, is that Mirandizing someone is only necessary to use their statements as evidence. He could say (well, write) "Yes I did it," but it wouldn't be admissible. If they have enough other evidence, I don't see this as a huge deal. But if they want to use it as evidence, yes Mirandize him.
After all, even John Adams defended British soldiers after the Boston Massacre (interesting coincidence here), feeling that the rule of law was paramount.
Bailey Guns
04-22-2013, 10:19
For that matter, there should be a judicial review of his naturalization. In my opinion, any naturalized citizen conducting an attack against the country like this has already forfeited that citizenship. You have to establish guilt in the attack before revocation but we shouldn't have any reservations about treating him as a hostile foreigner once he's convicted.
Yep. As part of his naturalization he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
They just announced they are going after the Death Penalty. I think that is a good call. Now if he just does not get to plea it down and/or prolong it to eternity.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.