RE: Justice in Boston

RE: Justice in Boston (Full Version)

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

Message

Aswad -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 5:39:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Except he didnt. He spent six months in Liverpool in 1912-1913. Hardly your exaggerated "couple of years" Shush. Inconvenient facts are impolite. [:D] IWYW, — Aswad.

Real0ne -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 5:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Except he didnt. He spent six months in Liverpool in 1912-1913. Hardly your exaggerated "couple of years" Shush. Inconvenient facts are impolite. [:D] IWYW, — Aswad. yeh but its not an inconvenient fact for me however ;)

SilverMark -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 6:40:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I had not read the reports of him taking the citizenship test. I find it funny that they try to make a point of it being on the anniversary of 9/11, as though that was something this kid chose trying to attach significance. The tests are scheduled for 100s of people at a time. I do have to wonder if he took the test under false pretenses given it was a mere 6 months ago. I also think we should revoke that citizenship. I believe he should get a fair trial, although I doubt that is possible. Personally, I think this kid should answer all their questions when he is able, and then kill himself. There is no legitimate excuse for what he did, and I don't think we should have to pay the millions of dolllars for a trial (providing him with a lawyer, no less), then millions on the necessary appeals, all the while putting a roof over his head, feeding him three meals a day (at the cost of more millions), then the million it takes to execute him. He really wants to show remorse? Tell authorities everything you can about what you did, then kill yourself. Harsh? Yep. Do I care? Nope. An act of terrorism doesn't negate the rights of citizenship, I would disagree with him being an enemy combatant. He is a socially dissident criminal, nothing more, nothing less, and the rights all of those accused of heinous acts are no less important than a jay walker, a speeder, or any other accused of breaking the law.

Owner59 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 7:43:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I had not read the reports of him taking the citizenship test. I find it funny that they try to make a point of it being on the anniversary of 9/11, as though that was something this kid chose trying to attach significance. The tests are scheduled for 100s of people at a time. I do have to wonder if he took the test under false pretenses given it was a mere 6 months ago. I also think we should revoke that citizenship. I believe he should get a fair trial, although I doubt that is possible. Personally, I think this kid should answer all their questions when he is able, and then kill himself. There is no legitimate excuse for what he did, and I don't think we should have to pay the millions of dolllars for a trial (providing him with a lawyer, no less), then millions on the necessary appeals, all the while putting a roof over his head, feeding him three meals a day (at the cost of more millions), then the million it takes to execute him. He really wants to show remorse? Tell authorities everything you can about what you did, then kill yourself. Harsh? Yep. Do I care? Nope. An act of terrorism doesn't negate the rights of citizenship, I would disagree with him being an enemy combatant. He is a socially dissident criminal, nothing more, nothing less, and the rights all of those accused of heinous acts are no less important than a jay walker, a speeder, or any other accused of breaking the law. Hey Mark, Ltns.... Just six months ago,he swore to defend this country from all enemies....foreign and domestic. That was when he became a US citizen.I think he kinda broke that pledge and if it was ruled as such,it would bother me. Doesn`t matter either way,he`s fucked no matter what.We`re going to mcveigh him. It might get the paranoids reved up,being as it may set a president that leads to anyone who attacks another Americans,no matter the circumstances,to lose their citizenship...as well as their liberty. Especially the rightie domestic terrorist sympathizer types, who regularly contemplate "watering the tree of liberty with blood". I would have loved to have seen mcveigh`s citizenship revoked before his death.

Owner59 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 7:50:03 PM)
Awake and talking(writing) with police.

Owner59 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 7:53:05 PM)
Added....republicans, starting to abuse event/tragedy for themselves..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/tamerlan-tsarnaev-fbi_n_3127284.html

YN -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 9:28:40 PM)
No doubt. He accepted citizenship and then attacked his fellow citizens. So why let him out of his responsibility as a citizen? For example your Ft. Hood killer was both a citizen and a military officer when he did the killings of his fellow soldiers, both which aggravates his offenses, even to the point of treason it is claimed. Why mitigate or diminish those crimes, or those of the Boston bomber, by removing the criminal's citizenship? If they were from another nation while they committed these great outrages, they are not at as great a grade of culpability as where they attack their own people

Powergamz1 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/21/2013 11:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Just six months ago,he swore to defend this country from all enemies....foreign and domestic. Not in America he didn't.

Rule -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 12:33:29 AM)
[sm=goodpost.gif]

DomKen -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 2:49:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Just six months ago,he swore to defend this country from all enemies....foreign and domestic. Not in America he didn't. actually he did quote: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=facd6db8d7e37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Politesub53 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 3:32:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh but its not an inconvenient fact for me however ;) Not in your twisted world no.

tj444 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 5:51:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Added....republicans, starting to abuse event/tragedy for themselves..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/tamerlan-tsarnaev-fbi_n_3127284.html what I dont understand is why Russia considered the older brother an extremist & dangerous and it was them that brought him to the attention of the FBI.. considering all that is available to the US govt, and considering he was living here for 11 years how did they totally miss his extremism & the danger he posed but Russia didnt? Its too bad Russia didnt explain to the FBI how they came to that conclusion.. they might have been able to do more if they had known..

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 6:14:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven They were not affiliated with AQ or any other terrorist organization formally. So he's of course entitled to a fair trial. That said, with the evidence, I can't see anything except an insanity plea being a valid defense. Actually Steven, cnbc has mentioned in it's reading of the news that the suspects may have accessed AQ ?websites, as I understand. It's being reported that Russia warned the FBI about the radical sounding brothers, or older brother in particular. If it is proven that they we're linked to AQ, thing may turn out very ugly for anyone left withing this plot. M ""Report: Russian Officials Warned FBI Alleged Boston Marathon Bomber Was a "Radical" Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/entertainment/tv/tvguide/article/Report-Russian-Officials-Warned-FBI-Alleged-4451327.php#ixzz2RCJUu6Ku

Powergamz1 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 6:44:02 AM)
The oath administered to all American military, and to new citizens, is to defend the Constitution... the words 'defend this country' don't appear in there anywhere. Do you ever deal in facts? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Just six months ago,he swore to defend this country from all enemies....foreign and domestic. Not in America he didn't. actually he did quote: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=facd6db8d7e37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 7:21:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML 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. Also Tim McVeigh. The number of people killed and the motives of the alleged killer do not alter the Constitutional requirement for a fair trial in criminal court. Any talk of enemy combatent status is nonsense. Your thoughts? Rebuttals? Yes agreed, and I feel he should not be denied Miranda rights either, but it is already too late for that. I really feel sometimes that we, as Americans, fear and obsess about certain risks, yet happily ignore larger ones. Living in New York, site of 9/11, I am STILL more likely to die of purely domestic gun violence than I am from international terrorism. (In fact, truth be told, most Americans are more likely to die from overeating sugar than from terrorism.) Does denying a 19-year old American their constitutional rights of the accused makes the world a "safer" place? Sadly, lowering ourselves to this level does NOT actually make the U.S. safer. It's just been a sad week between Boston, and the gun control issue. We really overreact to certain threats and do not take others seriously enough. And our ability to bend constitutional rights when it serves certain purposes, but not others, is really extraordinary.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 7:55:04 AM)
Read him his Miranda rights. That way, there will be less whining when they toast him.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 8:00:59 AM)
Can I add you to the list of people who keep claiming that he is being denied his 'Miranda rights' and offer nothing factual to back that up? What some people mistakenly call Miranda rights after sucking on the boob tube their whole lives, is in fact a policy that law enforcement agencies adopted to keep from having evidence thrown out. It was crafted after 2 Supreme Court rulings (Miranda, and Escobedo), and commonly referred to as a Miranda warning. There is no enforceable 'right' to hear the warning just because you see a police officer. There is no right to hear the warning just because a police officer asks you a question. There is no right to hear the warning just because the police have stopped you. There is no right to hear the warning just because the police have placed you in handcuffs, or even transported you to the station. These old wives tales are spread by gossip and ignorance. And the sad part is how many people don't have a clue what their actual rights are, where they can be found in the Constitution (5th and 6th amendments), and how they have been shaped by court rulings over the years. And as with any right named in the Constitution, the courts have balanced the protection of the individual against the protection of society. In this case it is well established that the safety benefit to society in asking whether there are other bombs set to go off, outweighs the harm to the subject in delaying hearing someone recite the verbage he's already heard thousands of times on TV. Now just as soon as someone comes up with a non-hysterical and reliable source documenting that this person is being denied a lawyer after asking for one, or is being beaten with rubber hoses until he confesses, or some other actual denial of his rights, please feel free to post the link... I'd be real interested to see that. quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Yes agreed, and I feel he should not be denied Miranda rights either, but it is already too late for that. I really feel sometimes that we, as Americans, fear and obsess about certain risks, yet happily ignore larger ones. Living in New York, site of 9/11, I am STILL more likely to die of purely domestic gun violence than I am from international terrorism. (In fact, truth be told, most Americans are more likely to die from overeating sugar than from terrorism.) Does denying a 19-year old American their constitutional rights of the accused makes the world a "safer" place? Sadly, lowering ourselves to this level does NOT actually make the U.S. safer. It's just been a sad week between Boston, and the gun control issue. We really overreact to certain threats and do not take others seriously enough. And our ability to bend constitutional rights when it serves certain purposes, but not others, is really extraordinary.

angelikaJ -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 9:15:07 AM)
The only thing Miranda does is to inform him that anything he says may be used against him in a court of law. In fact nothing you ever say will be used to help you, which is why the advice is to STFU and get a lawyer. So what will happen without the Miranda rights is that nothing he says can be used in court. That is all. They already have enough to build a case against him from video tapes and the grenades and bombs that were thrown on Thursday along with shooting at the police officers and the car-jacking. They do not need his testimony to help build their case.

DomKen -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 10:01:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 The oath administered to all American military, and to new citizens, is to defend the Constitution... the words 'defend this country' don't appear in there anywhere. Do you ever deal in facts? Defending the Constitution isn't also defending this country? Are you really claiming the oath I took when I entered the navy did not require me to defnd the nation?

BamaD -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 10:42:50 AM)
quote: Its too bad Russia didnt explain to the FBI how they came to that conclusion.. they might have been able to do more if they had known.. How do we know they didn't

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875