RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston

RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LizDeluxe -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 4:47:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I have a problem with this whole, not reading him his rights thing. The right to refuse to incriminate himself doesn't come off a little card in the cop's pocket. It comes from the Bill of Rights, and this murderous little shit is a citizen of these United States. If he says, no, he will not answer questions while in police custody, and wants a lawyer, the foundational principles of our nation demand that we respect that right. I don't like it, either. I went to sleep last night after news of the capture broke and felt really good... very proud of law enforcement. Woke up this morning and read the Miranda stuff and most of that good feeling was washed away.

tweakabelle -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 4:48:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR . I think Lindsay Graham is right. The solution is not exercise some lawyerized exception to the 5th Amendment, but to classify him as an enemy combatent, at least until we can clearly establish otherwise. Then fill the water pitcher as needed, until we are certain some cousin or comrade isn't still out there, with more pressure cookers. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents of the first paragraph. However, creating a special status such as "enemy combatant" grants him a status that he doesn't deserve. He is a criminal who broke the law and ought to be treated as such. Designating a special legal/military status (especially as your motive seems to be to enable him to be tortured) creates the impression that terrorism is an issue that can be solved using military methods. Surely by now we have realised that terrorism cannot be defeated by military means alone.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 5:33:45 AM)
Nothing on the internet matched the claims you made, so in other words, you simply made up the part about denying him his rights, denying him a lawyer, and forcing him to self incriminate. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Where is this information coming from? Try Google.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 5:39:35 AM)
And from what comic book did you get the ridiculous notion that someone has to be immediately read their rights like on TV, before they are asked about other bombs they may have left out there? Because neither the Constitution, or the Supreme Court says any such thing. Seems like any 'good feelings' you had toward law enforcement were simply a facade, if it was that easy to shed them. quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I have a problem with this whole, not reading him his rights thing. The right to refuse to incriminate himself doesn't come off a little card in the cop's pocket. It comes from the Bill of Rights, and this murderous little shit is a citizen of these United States. If he says, no, he will not answer questions while in police custody, and wants a lawyer, the foundational principles of our nation demand that we respect that right. I don't like it, either. I went to sleep last night after news of the capture broke and felt really good... very proud of law enforcement. Woke up this morning and read the Miranda stuff and most of that good feeling was washed away.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 5:41:48 AM)
People love to bleat 'enemy combatant' without having a clue what that means. On the first paragraph, he is not being denied his right to an attorney, this particular exception only applies to giving the warning about remaining silent. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda. http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-suspect-not-being-read-miranda-rights-021230827.html;_ylt=A2KJNTtEinJR9H4AbZfQtDMD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR . I think Lindsay Graham is right. The solution is not exercise some lawyerized exception to the 5th Amendment, but to classify him as an enemy combatent, at least until we can clearly establish otherwise. Then fill the water pitcher as needed, until we are certain some cousin or comrade isn't still out there, with more pressure cookers. I agree wholeheartedly with the contents of the first paragraph. However, creating a special status such as "enemy combatant" grants him a status that he doesn't deserve. He is a criminal who broke the law and ought to be treated as such. Designating a special legal/military status (especially as your motive seems to be to enable him to be tortured) creates the impression that terrorism is an issue that can be solved using military methods. Surely by now we have realised that terrorism cannot be defeated by military means alone.

JeffBC -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 7:05:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Miranda does seem just a bit of overkill in this case anyway doesn't it....lol. No. The rule of law does not seem like overkill to me in pretty much any case.

DomKen -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 7:17:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR I have a problem with this whole, not reading him his rights thing. The right to refuse to incriminate himself doesn't come off a little card in the cop's pocket. It comes from the Bill of Rights, and this murderous little shit is a citizen of these United States. If he says, no, he will not answer questions while in police custody, and wants a lawyer, the foundational principles of our nation demand that we respect that right. I think Lindsay Graham is right. The solution is not exercise some lawyerized exception to the 5th Amendment, but to classify him as an enemy combatent, at least until we can clearly establish otherwise. Then fill the water pitcher as needed, until we are certain some cousin or comrade isn't still out there, with more pressure cookers. Just because he is not given the Miranda warning does not mean he can't ask for a lawyer and shut up till he gets one. As to torturing him hell no never again.

TheHeretic -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 7:42:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Let me be perfectly clear: if saving my loved ones is contingent on violating my values in an expedient manner, I may as well start grieving right away. The alternatives are (1) not having any values, or (2) not having any values, but pretending to anyway. I'm fairly certain that's an exhaustive listing of the possibilities, except rescinding moral agency, which falls under the first heading pretty much by definition. This is where we diverge, Aswad. The right of the innocent to go about their business without getting blown up is a value as well. As I'm understanding what you have said, that is the value you are willing to chuck out the window, in a conflict with the value of the suspect's right's. I'm going with the right of the people to peacefully assemble. We aren't in the realm of the hypothetical, or the vaguely possible situation here. The values conflict is direct, and immediate, with deadly stakes. I don't like the choices, but I don't much like the situation that requires the choice be made, either. Both options are bad. Is it worth losing a little sleep over? Absolutely. So, if something bad has to happen here, what is the best way to do it? I think the consequences of putting this into law are worse, than having some federal judge issuing an order that the Army get a 72 hour hold, before transferring back into civilian custody (or something like that). The decision will get daylight in the appeals process, too, and I think that is a better long term outcome.

vincentML -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 8:38:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML A mind boggling contradiction. He is an American citizen and so due his Miranda but it's okay to classify him as an enemy combatant and torture him. Going over the edge there, Rich [8\|] Welcome to the wonderful world of the gray area, Vince, where values come into conflict, and everything gets blurry. Enemy combatent is far from a perfect solution, but shit needs to get done, at least in the short term. I think it is better to remove him from the realm of civilian law, than to reinforce the idea that you don't have your rights, until the police decide to give them to you. Got a better idea, that still gets us what we need? I'd love to hear it if you do. Removing someone from the civilian law does in fact glaringly reinforce the idea that he has no rights as it completely abrogates the Constitution. The "public safety" exception to Miranda is not new. You should not be so shocked. The Supreme Court ruled on the matter in 1984. " (a) Although respondent was in police custody when he made his statements and the facts come within the ambit of Miranda, nevertheless on these facts there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. In this case, so long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, it posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, or a customer or employee might later come upon it. Pp. 655-657." New York vs Benjamin Quarles Removing a citizen completely from the protection of the Constitution recalls the Special Courts established in Germany 1933/34. Apologies for playing the Nazi card here but that's what happened and that's why designating a citizen as enemy combatent is so abhorrent and so threatening to civil liberty. Furthermore, there seems to be no basis for it in the 2001 authorization of force resolution that gave to the President the authority: to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. And no basis in any other US Law. Welcome to the world of constitutional liberty, Rich.

vincentML -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 8:47:27 AM)
quote: So, if something bad has to happen here, what is the best way to do it? I think the consequences of putting this into law are worse, than having some federal judge issuing an order that the Army get a 72 hour hold, before transferring back into civilian custody (or something like that). The decision will get daylight in the appeals process, too, and I think that is a better long term outcome. Transferring an American citizen over to the Military? What madness!!

TheHeretic -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 8:54:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The Supreme Court ruled on the matter in 1984. Why yes they did, Vince, and I didn't like it at the time, nor did the symbolism of the year escape notice. I like it less as time goes on.

LizDeluxe -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 8:56:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 And from what comic book did you get the ridiculous notion that someone has to be immediately read their rights like on TV, before they are asked about other bombs they may have left out there? Because neither the Constitution, or the Supreme Court says any such thing. From Wikipedia: The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for domestic violence. (Miranda was subsequently retried and convicted.) The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states: ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. So much for that. quote: Seems like any 'good feelings' you had toward law enforcement were simply a facade, if it was that easy to shed them. I'll readily admit that I have an extreme dislike and distrust for law enforcement in general. While my feelings last night ended up being fleeting, they were genuine at the time. Of course, I awoke this morning to read yet more proof of why my dislike and distrust of law enforcement is truly warranted.

TheHeretic -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 8:58:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Transferring an American citizen over to the Military? What madness!! Setting an anti-personnel bomb down in a crowd of families? What madness!!

vincentML -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 9:03:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Transferring an American citizen over to the Military? What madness!! Setting an anti-personnel bomb down in a crowd of families? What madness!! Giving up our civil liberties in the face of a terrorist act? A surrender of basic principles. Terrorists win. The Court held "public safety" a proper exception to Miranda. I doubt if there is anyway to prevent future attacks on soft targets.

TheHeretic -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 9:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Giving up our civil liberties in the face of a terrorist act? A surrender of basic principles. Terrorists win. I'm not going to argue how we handle things in the grey, with someone stuck in the denial of it all being blank and white. Have a lovely day.

vincentML -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 9:25:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Giving up our civil liberties in the face of a terrorist act? A surrender of basic principles. Terrorists win. I'm not going to argue how we handle things in the grey, with someone stuck in the denial of it all being blank and white. Have a lovely day. How typical. When you run out of reasonable argument you turn to the ad hominem track.. True to form, Rich. ETA: There is no gray area. You're making this shit up as you go along.

vincentML -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 9:40:38 AM)
~FR~ I put it to anyone else: An American citizen accused of murder is entitled to a criminal trial before a jury of civilians. I offer the Aurora mass killer as an example. The number of people killed and the motives of the killer do not alter the Constitutional requirement for a fair trial in criminal court. Any talk of enemy combatent is nonsense.

kdsub -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 10:47:20 AM)
quote: Why is it that those people who lead the clamour for strict enforcement of the law, and tough punishment of those who break the law, seem to be the first to advocate breaking the law when the heat is on? Why is it that some can't find out what the law is before they open their mouths. All through this crisis you and your like have constantly been critical and insinuating motives and actions they have not taken place. Yet you do not have the grace or honor to say you were wrong. The actions of all law enforcement in this tragedy were above reproach. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 10:51:41 AM)
quote: Let me be perfectly clear: if saving my loved ones is contingent on violating my values in an expedient manner, I may as well start grieving right away Yea right The amendment to this law is sensible and NOT a violation of his rights under the Constitution...It may just save innocent lives. Now if they start twisting his wounded leg while they ask questions I may agree with you. Butch

TheHeretic -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 11:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is no gray area. Your howls aside, this is the place where I dismiss your significance in the conversation. If you find being dismissed is my typical response to your efforts, maybe you should improve your efforts. The world is full of shadows and grey.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02