RE: Justice in Boston (Full Version)

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



Message


kdsub -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 1:42:29 PM)

I understand...its hard but I do.... amends were made.




kdsub -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 2:06:09 PM)

sorry angelikaJ...I did not see where you had already expressed our common view... and managed to do it without getting in trouble.

Butch




angelikaJ -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 2:20:11 PM)

Butch,

It took work and a lot of back-spacing.




thompsonx -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 2:21:13 PM)

quote:

according to a report the FBI did ask the Russians but got no answer back.. so unless the FBI are lying, i expect that to be true..


Would'nt that be a first....the fbi being less than truthful?????say it aint so.




thompsonx -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 2:25:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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?



When those who are suppose to be running the country subvert the constitution then defending the constitution becomes something different than what you are saying.




thompsonx -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 2:34:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: animaltrainer69

@Domken have you ever really been tortured.


Have you?

I have.
It all started when I married Susan...........


You volunteered to let her torture you...and you paid her....Does it get any better than that?




thompsonx -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 2:36:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: animaltrainer69

@thompsonx, i know it works


Please do some research and disabuse yourself of your ignorance.




tj444 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 2:56:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

according to a report the FBI did ask the Russians but got no answer back.. so unless the FBI are lying, i expect that to be true..


Would'nt that be a first....the fbi being less than truthful?????say it aint so.

well,.. do you think that the Russians would sit there on their hands & happily be the "bad guy" or skapegoat and not say anything to dispute this public statement by the FBI if they had actually replied? I dont think so.. so unless they do that.. or wikileaks leaks proof to dispute the FBI statement.. thats all I can go by..
[sm=dunno.gif]




thompsonx -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 3:09:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

according to a report the FBI did ask the Russians but got no answer back.. so unless the FBI are lying, i expect that to be true..


Would'nt that be a first....the fbi being less than truthful?????say it aint so.

well,.. do you think that the Russians would sit there on their hands & happily be the "bad guy" or skapegoat and not say anything to dispute this public statement by the FBI if they had actually replied?


The russians have always been quite sensitive to what the west thought but them---not

quote:


I dont think so..


That would be your opinion.

quote:

so unless they do that.. or wikileaks leaks proof to dispute the FBI statement.. thats all I can go by..
[sm=dunno.gif]


You mean that the fbi's history of lying and fabricationg evidence plays no part in your decission?
Perhaps you really are as smart as I thought you were.





tj444 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 3:40:20 PM)

both the FBI & Russians have lied.. you would rather believe your govt lied over Russia? (tsk, tsk, tsk) You know I am no fan of your govt & its agencies.. but imo if the FBI had been told by the reasons by the Russians then they would have kept their eye on him & put him on a list (as they do with many others).. but you cant expect them to foil every terrorist plot, especially if they are rogue terrorists with no affilation to any terrorist group.. I wonder if they get too much info & tips and end up spreading themselves too thin trying to go thru it all




Aswad -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 5:41:25 PM)

angelikaJ, kdsub and VAC,

I apologize for my poor choice of words, and the unintended offense that caused.

Let me run through what happened for context.

A post was made wherein a reference to WMDs was made in connection with the Boston attacks. Not currently following American media, and being unfamiliar with American law, I was unaware that this was a legal term, or that it had already been brought to bear in this case. As such, I assumed that the term was meant as a comparison, by that poster, between the Boston attacks and those events to which we may uncontroversially apply the term mass destruction in the context of WMDs. This misunderstanding on my part happened despite an attempt at using native speakers to verify the reading of the post in question as a safeguard against being harsh with the poster for no reason. I have since apologized to the poster whose post I misread, despite others appearing to have read it the same way.

In reply, in the context of the misread post, I wrote pointedly about the lack of comparability between the Boston attacks and mass destruction events. I will admit I was, at the time, offended by the mistakenly perceived comparison, and that I may have let that influence my choice of words. The references to the Boston attack made in that context were not meant to belittle, diminish or otherwise dismiss the horror of the Boston attacks, but rather meant to illustrate that if we were to compare them in the context of WMDs, the comparison would be ludicrous, and that accordingly one would have to use terms to describe the Boston attacks that are patently inapplicable to get the perspective right. Ironically, the key point of this was precisely that we cannot make the comparison, because the two exist in entirely seperate frames of reference: the Boston attacks were a massively (adjective) destructive event, not a "mass destruction" (noun) event.

In the course of writing the reply, I forgot about the fact that there is always an "audience" in a forum, posters that will be reading the text as a third party to such an exchange, and that any post must thus be written also for that audience, which in this case had the Boston attacks fresh in their minds. It should have been obvious to me that my choice of words would give offense. An offense I did not intend, I assure you.

I'll note, with particular attention to what angelikaJ said, that I followed closely our own attacks a while ago.

During the bombing in Oslo, my beloved was supposed to be present at that time, in that place, to the best of my (then) knowledge. I have some comprehension of how these things can hit close to home, even for those not in the middle of it. As for scale, those attacks weren't mass destruction, either, but were certainly massive, as I well know from following the coverage and later the trial with its detailed coverage of what happened to each individual victim and what the consequences for them and their families have been. Those are strong impressions that cannot be erased. Impressions that spring to mind unbidden when following the Boston attacks. While my words were insensitive, my heart is not. And, perhaps therein lies the problem: I let myself be moved to post in a crude and rash manner.

That in itself calls for an admission of fault and the apology here given.

Mea maxima culpa, sodales.

IWYW,
— Aswad.





Powergamz1 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 8:13:19 PM)

Do you seriously think anyone is going to fall for that? I pointed out the fact that Miranda was based on 5th and 6th amendment rights, instead of being an enumerated right by itself, you claim I am full of it, and then parrot exactly what I said?

Followed by an opinion piece article the repeats the exact same FBI quote I already posted, and an out of date blog?

You aren't 'aware' of any issues because there are none. He was not refused an attorney, your own link corrected itself to say that he is being assigned a public defender.

He was not denied medical care, FFS, the man was read his warning by a damn *judge*, and every single step was by the book.


You are using these deaths and maimings along with the fact that every single one of this subject's rights are being scrupulously protected, to play some sort of internet denier's game, and I refuse to be a party to that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Here are the Miranda rights issues that I am aware of in this case. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you weren't aware that this was an issue here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/miranda-rights-boston-bombing-suspect_n_3120333.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295139-aclu-calls-for-miranda-rights-for-boston-bombing-suspect



The rights that the Miranda rights protects are the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. You need to re-read Miranda v. Arizona as I don't think you understand the constitutional grounding of the so-called Miranda "rights".







fucktoyprincess -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/27/2013 12:27:27 PM)

In my original post I only ever said that he should not be denied his Miranda rights. I stand by that statement and NOTHING I have read in the press seems contrary to my position. This was NOT a case of public safety, and, in fact, he was read his rights on Monday (but only AFTER questioning that occurred on Sunday) PRECISELY because people started to worry about NOT reading him his rights and the implications of that. I think your reading of this case as warranting the public safety exception is inaccurate. Many other prominent legal scholars in the country happen to AGREE with me. But, of course, you are entitled to your own opinion on this. Be well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda_n_3134745.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/how-an-arrest-in-queens-led-to-the-public-safety-exception/




slvemike4u -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/27/2013 2:03:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

They were not affiliated with AQ or any other terrorist organization formally.



That's not something that is known, Steve. The elder brother was out of the country for half a year, without any knowledge of what he was doing, or who he was interacting with.



well the world is full of crazy twists, like whoda thought hitler spent a couple years in britain before the war? LOL

very small world in certain circles.

Certainly not me.
RO,seriously Hitler....in Britain....and before the war(as opposed to after I suppose ?)too.
I wonder if there is anyway to check such a statement,and how Toland missed it when writing his biography of the man.




Politesub53 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/27/2013 2:20:38 PM)

Mike I answered the part about Hitler. Idiot boy thinks the fact Hitler stayed in Liverpool with family members some 20 years before WW2 is somehow a big fact.

just the same ole from him.




dcnovice -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/27/2013 6:12:47 PM)

quote:

(In fact, truth be told, most Americans are more likely to die from overeating sugar than from terrorism.)

I've often said terrorists have yet to come up with anything nearly so dangerous as my own food choices. [:)]




thompsonx -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/28/2013 7:06:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

(In fact, truth be told, most Americans are more likely to die from overeating sugar than from terrorism.)

I've often said terrorists have yet to come up with anything nearly so dangerous as my own food choices. [:)]


Even those who consider themselves "food conscious" have their weak moments...fri 26 april>>>las vegas>>>buffet>>>do try the caviar>>>followed by a little time praying at the "porcelan altar". Even the superannuated are suseptable.




Powergamz1 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/28/2013 1:45:40 PM)

You are *not* entitled to your own facts. He was read his rights, because the law requires no undue delay in holding the arraignment. You don't have the faintest shred of evidence to support the assertion that the judge had to be pressured.

The questioning prior to that did not deprive him of any rights. They will be preserved when the information obtained is either allowed or disallowed at trial.
There is zero evidence that he was denied any of his Constitutional rights.

You are not a prominent legal scholar, legally your posts are functionally illiterate. Your claim that *other* prominent legal scholars happen to agree with you, is beyond ludicrous.
There are a few nut-job politicians, and sensationalizing media hacks bleating the same disproven myths, that's it.

And the bizarre notion that the two bombs in a crowd was not a matter of public safety is too irrational to even entertain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

In my original post I only ever said that he should not be denied his Miranda rights. I stand by that statement and NOTHING I have read in the press seems contrary to my position. This was NOT a case of public safety, and, in fact, he was read his rights on Monday (but only AFTER questioning that occurred on Sunday) PRECISELY because people started to worry about NOT reading him his rights and the implications of that. I think your reading of this case as warranting the public safety exception is inaccurate. Many other prominent legal scholars in the country happen to AGREE with me. But, of course, you are entitled to your own opinion on this. Be well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda_n_3134745.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/how-an-arrest-in-queens-led-to-the-public-safety-exception/





dcnovice -> RE: Justice in Boston (5/6/2013 4:19:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

(In fact, truth be told, most Americans are more likely to die from overeating sugar than from terrorism.)

I've often said terrorists have yet to come up with anything nearly so dangerous as my own food choices. [:)]


This thread came to mind when I saw the picture below on FB this morning:

[image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/936423_10151425343116194_1584078549_n.jpg[/image]




vincentML -> RE: Justice in Boston (5/6/2013 7:49:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

(In fact, truth be told, most Americans are more likely to die from overeating sugar than from terrorism.)

I've often said terrorists have yet to come up with anything nearly so dangerous as my own food choices. [:)]

Sure. And more die from automobile accidents. But terrorism has a different psychological impact. We are no longer sure we are safe on airplanes, at sporting events, or in malls. For the moment at least. Perhaps we will get used to it like our Brit cousins got used to the terror of the IRA and Israeli go about their daily lives riding buses but keeping an eye out for anyone with extra padding under his coat. But don't buy that bs that life has not changed in America. Our memories are short. But wait for the one that goes off in a mall. Oh, my goodness!




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0859375