FBI Releases Marathon Suspect Pictures

[peplaw06]

How do you take away someone's right to remain silent?

TALK DAMNIT!!

 

[Jon88]

Help a victim. The government shot up the dudes boat. That is a no-no.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boat-watertown-david-henneberry-222303887.html

I'll let the governement handle this since they did it.

 

[peplaw06]

I know you torture them, but if they die being tortured, then that doesn't accomplish much.

 

[Jon88]

How do you take away someone's right to remain silent?

TALK DAMNIT!!

I'd threaten to cut off his ventillator.

 

[Hoofbite]

Help a victim. The government shot up the dudes boat. That is a no-no.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boat-watertown-david-henneberry-222303887.html

I wonder if insurance policies cover SWAT operations in your driveway.

 

[VTA]

There is a distinction to be made, but that's AFTER due process has been afforded. Once they've been given due process and convicted, then they can be deprived of their rights.

It's not about who's disadvantaged. It's about every person (no matter their gender, race, or creed) having the advantage of having the judicial system work for them. That includes criminals and victims, the offenders and the offended.

Then I have to ask: what is the point of due process? Is it to go through the motions to appease a perception or is it to resolve a thing?

OJ Simpson, no matter what anyone may think of him, was certainly rightly given his due process. There was plenty of question in the matter and the point of due process is to determine guilt where doubt exists.

If all question concerning guilt is erased due to being caught in the act, what is the point of going through the motions?

 

[JBond]

I wonder if insurance policies cover SWAT operations in your driveway.

... Always on point. I think I will call my agent and add a rider.

 

[JBond]

SURVIVING BOSTON BOMB SUSPECT WON'T BE TREATED AS ENEMY COMBATANT

The White House said Monday that the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing will not be treated as an enemy combatant, in response to calls from Republican lawmakers to consider that option.

The announcement came as a federal complaint was filed against suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Fox News has learned that the suspect made an initial appearance in front of a federal magistrate judge at the hospital where he is still being treated. No plea was entered.

The complaint charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction at the marathon one week ago, an attack that killed three people and injured more than 200. The document authorized the death penalty or life imprisonment to be sought.

"Although our investigation is ongoing, today's charges bring a successful end to a tragic week for the city of Boston, and for our country," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the suspect remains in "serious condition" at the hospital. As the complaint was filed, Carney made clear that the suspect would go through the civilian court system, and would not be handled as a combatant.

"He will not be treated as an enemy combatant," Carney said. "We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice."

Carney stressed that the civilian system has been used to try, convict and incarcerate "hundreds of terrorists" since the 9/11 attacks, including the Times Square attempted bomber. "The system has repeatedly proved that it can successfully handle the threats we continue to face," he said.

Carney noted U.S. citizens -- like Tsarnaev -- cannot be tried in military commissions and stressed that the civilian court system can handle such a case.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and other lawmakers, though, were not suggesting he be tried before a military commission, since U.S. law would not allow that.

Graham, rather, was suggesting that the administration label him an "enemy combatant" for purposes of intelligence gathering. Graham conceded it's not yet clear whether he could qualify as one -- to do so, the government would need to prove he was linked to Al Qaeda or an Al Qaeda-linked group.

Officials have cited a public safety exemption in declining to read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights initially. But that exemption only lasts for 48 hours, and Graham had suggested President Obama consider designating him a combatant while they interrogate him for up to roughly 30 days.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-be-treated-as-enemy-combatant/#ixzz2RDVE7nhq

 

[peplaw06]

Then I have to ask: what is the point of due process? Is it to go through the motions to appease a perception or is it to resolve a thing?

OJ Simpson, no matter what anyone may think of him, was certainly rightly given his due process. There was plenty of question in the matter and the point of due process is to determine guilt where doubt exists.

If all question concerning guilt is erased due to being caught in the act, what is the point of going through the motions?

The point is you can't pick and choose when "all question concerning guilt is erased." I don't know that such a thing is even possible. It certainly doesn't exist here.

Who would determine something like that? A police officer, an eye-witness, a judge, the majority? All are fallible.

99.9999999 to 100% of the time there is at least *some* doubt. Why carve out an exception to due process when it would hardly, if ever, be used?

 

[superpunk]

SURVIVING BOSTON BOMB SUSPECT WON'T BE TREATED AS ENEMY COMBATANT

can i assume Obama has failed us here?

 

[VTA]

The point is you can't pick and choose when "all question concerning guilt is erased." I don't know that such a thing is even possible. It certainly doesn't exist here.

Who would determine something like that? A police officer, an eye-witness, a judge, the majority? All are fallible.

99.9999999 to 100% of the time there is at least *some* doubt. Why carve out an exception to due process when it would hardly, if ever, be used?

I understand the specific case of this Boston guy. My overall comment included people like Loughner, who was tackled in the commission of his crime.

 

[JBond]

can i assume Obama has failed us here?

If you wish...

It may be a good idea to force him to talk about his terrorist group, the funding etc. but I also understand the reason for giving him a lawyer and not forcing him to give up his knowledge regarding his terrorist group. Slippery slope and all that jazz.

This has been an odd thread to say the least. A bit of role reversal.

 

[2233boys]

I never said he does not deserve a trial. Stop making things up to fit your view of me. I said we could use a military tribunal. I also suggested his citizenship could be revoked but then discovered under current law that is not feasible. Maybe we can set him free and drone strike his ass Obama style.

Your comment to me when I mentioned he deserved due process as an American Citizen

He was not a natural born citizen. He was an import. We hand out our rights to foreign nationals way to easily. Revoking terrorist's citizenship should be considered.

Picking and choosing when we afford a citizen constitutional rights, same thing could be said about your military tribunal idea.

You really think you are better than others. Sigh... Thank you Jesus for bringing us 2233. He has all the answers. I tried to post some things that were relevant to the discussion, but the reality is you are just superpunk lite without the sense of humor.

You posted a talking point from an entertainer. It'd be like me posting comments from the guys on Comedy Central or Bill Mahr. I don't have all the answers but I do have an opinion. I made my case based on facts as I saw them. You didn't agree but as you found out by doing a little research; I was correct.

It's an emotional topic that's why that was one of the first things I stated when responding to VTA. I just think if you are for the constitution as the governing structure behind our democracy then you can't pick and choose when it applies.

 

[peplaw06]

I understand the specific case of this Boston guy. My overall comment included people like Loughner, who was tackled in the commission of his crime.

But even if that's the case, there is still the need for a trial. There are elements to each crime that have to be proven... and in the instance of these mass killings you have to prove the criminal intent. That's where premeditation, insanity, etc. all come into play. It's not as simple as did the guy do it beyond a reasonable doubt. For centuries the law has considered differing levels of criminal intent. You can't just say we caught this guy in the crime and string em up old west style.

 

[VTA]

You're the lawyer (I think).

 

[Hoofbite]

As much as the death penalty would be wanted, part of me wants to see this kid end up in Gen Pop getting passed around from deprived inmate to deprived inmate.

Not quite 72 virgins, my friend, but we got a whole cell block of dudes who haven't fucked anything new in a while. Hope that's good enough for you.

What the fuck is with the 72 virgins anyway? Seriously, 72?

65 wouldn't have been enough? What kind of sexually deprived, fucked up shit is this?

Seriously, start sending these assholes some porn so they can bust a nut and start doing something constructive.

 

[Dodger12]

With all due respect, you folks are missing something. Who will choose when we stray away from the Constitution and deprive someone of their Due Process? Today it's for a terrorist related crime. I also think that child molesters are heinous animals. Will we throw them into the mix? I think an argument can be made for "public "safety". What about a rapist? I guess my point is that these decisions will be made by these dolt politicians who don't even know enough than to not show their penis on twitter to a complete stranger. Or some stupid bitch who isn't smart enough to realize that a 30 round magazine can be reloaded and is not disposable after it's emptied. Or some dumb elected cocksucker who thinks Guam will capsize into the ocean if it's over populated. And we trust these folks to make these decisions and distinctions for us?

Bottom line is this: the Constitution wasn't made to protect us from terrorists or rapists or murders. It was made to protect us from the government. It was made to protect us from idiots such as Hank Johnson and Anthony Weiner. Beware people making exceptions for these heinous crimes because once you lose a liberty, you'll never get it back.

 

[Iamtdg]

I think that a terrorist act should be better defined and how it is handled better defined as well.

 

[2233boys]

Been my point the whole time dodger.

 

[peplaw06]

With all due respect, you folks are missing something. Who will choose when we stray away from the Constitution and deprive someone of their Due Process? Today it's for a terrorist related crime. I also think that child molesters are heinous animals. Will we throw them into the mix? I think an argument can be made for "public "safety". What about a rapist? I guess my point is that these decisions will be made by these dolt politicians who don't even know enough than to not show their penis on twitter to a complete stranger. Or some stupid bitch who isn't smart enough to realize that a 30 round magazine can be reloaded and is not disposable after it's emptied. Or some dumb elected cocksucker who thinks Guam will capsize into the ocean if it's over populated. And we trust these folks to make these decisions and distinctions for us?

Bottom line is this: the Constitution wasn't made to protect us from terrorists or rapists or murders. It was made to protect us from the government. It was made to protect us from idiots such as Hank Johnson and Anthony Weiner. Beware people making exceptions for these heinous crimes because once you lose a liberty, you'll never get it back.

That's what I said right here...

Who would determine something like that? A police officer, an eye-witness, a judge, the majority? All are fallible.