Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Withhold Rights of Domestic Terrorists?

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 4:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Senator Lindsey Graham (douchebag) wants to hold the suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a US citizen, as an an 'enemy combatant'

'The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent."'

http://reason.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 5:07:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 4:50:30 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Senator Lindsey Graham (douchebag) wants to hold the suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a US citizen, as an an 'enemy combatant'

'The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent."'

http://reason.com...

Sen. Rand Paul won't be happy. But if the Boston Marathon bomber indeed carried a bundle of explosive substance, it is not unreasonable to suggest that "The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent." He won't listen to anyone anyway...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 5:15:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The point is whether or not you vary someones Constitutional rights based on the brutality of their crime as judged by the public.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 5:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 5:15:27 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is whether or not you vary someones Constitutional rights based on the brutality of their crime as judged by the public.

No. Someone's constitutional rights should not be violated. But the issue on hand is not entirely about the brutality of their crimes. It also involves national security, i.e., War on terror. And if the suspect is proven to be linked to terrorism organizations, according to the White Paper, under certainty extraordinary circumstance, government could label this particular individual an enemy combat.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 6:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 5:29:11 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 5:15:27 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is whether or not you vary someones Constitutional rights based on the brutality of their crime as judged by the public.

No. Someone's constitutional rights should not be violated. But the issue on hand is not entirely about the brutality of their crimes. It also involves national security, i.e., War on terror. And if the suspect is proven to be linked to terrorism organizations, according to the White Paper, under certainty extraordinary circumstance, government could label this particular individual an enemy combat.

If we were in a state of actual war that might make sense, but we use the word war and association so loosely they've lost all meaning.
It think as long as we aren't under marshal law all citizens should protected under the Constitution, even if their google history includes 'how to build bombs Al Qaeda'. I don't understand why there should be a difference if the terrorist does it in the name of Jihad or is a Neo-Nazi who doesn't like the government.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 7:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 5:07:10 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 4:50:30 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Senator Lindsey Graham (douchebag) wants to hold the suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a US citizen, as an an 'enemy combatant'

'The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent."'

http://reason.com...

Sen. Rand Paul won't be happy. But if the Boston Marathon bomber indeed carried a bundle of explosive substance, it is not unreasonable to suggest that "The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent." He won't listen to anyone anyway...

No, if the Boston Marathon bomber was carrying a bundle of explosives and police had reason to believe he would be a further threat, they would SHOOT HIM.

For the love of christ, it's not like there is risk that we won't have sufficient evidence to hold him. We have him as dead to rights as it gets without being strapped to an electric chair.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 7:40:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 6:15:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 5:29:11 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 5:15:27 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is whether or not you vary someones Constitutional rights based on the brutality of their crime as judged by the public.

No. Someone's constitutional rights should not be violated. But the issue on hand is not entirely about the brutality of their crimes. It also involves national security, i.e., War on terror. And if the suspect is proven to be linked to terrorism organizations, according to the White Paper, under certainty extraordinary circumstance, government could label this particular individual an enemy combat.

If we were in a state of actual war that might make sense, but we use the word war and association so loosely they've lost all meaning.

It think as long as we aren't under marshal law all citizens should protected under the Constitution, even if their google history includes 'how to build bombs Al Qaeda'. I don't understand why there should be a difference if the terrorist does it in the name of Jihad or is a Neo-Nazi who doesn't like the government.

First, to a certain extent, there is an actual war going on. It is war of terror although the word "war" in this case is slightly different than the conventional meaning.

Second, at least according to my understanding, the rationale behind the white paper is that once an American declares a war on the United States, regardless of his or her status, he or she relinquishes all the rights including the constitutional rights protected by the U.S constitution. Therefore given the fact that he or she is no longer being protected, government is permitted to use lethal force if necessary, without due process.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 8:17:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 7:40:30 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 6:15:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 5:29:11 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 5:15:27 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is whether or not you vary someones Constitutional rights based on the brutality of their crime as judged by the public.

No. Someone's constitutional rights should not be violated. But the issue on hand is not entirely about the brutality of their crimes. It also involves national security, i.e., War on terror. And if the suspect is proven to be linked to terrorism organizations, according to the White Paper, under certainty extraordinary circumstance, government could label this particular individual an enemy combat.

If we were in a state of actual war that might make sense, but we use the word war and association so loosely they've lost all meaning.

It think as long as we aren't under marshal law all citizens should protected under the Constitution, even if their google history includes 'how to build bombs Al Qaeda'. I don't understand why there should be a difference if the terrorist does it in the name of Jihad or is a Neo-Nazi who doesn't like the government.

First, to a certain extent, there is an actual war going on. It is war of terror although the word "war" in this case is slightly different than the conventional meaning.

That's the whole point though, if the word war has no legal meaning then how do you use it in justifying not extending rights to citizens? We're in the middle of a war on drugs, a war on obesity, a war on poverty, a war on terrorism, the word war doesn't me anything anymore.

Second, at least according to my understanding, the rationale behind the white paper is that once an American declares a war on the United States, regardless of his or her status, he or she relinquishes all the rights including the constitutional rights protected by the U.S constitution. Therefore given the fact that he or she is no longer being protected, government is permitted to use lethal force if necessary, without due process.

That's too broad, they're not going to have an affidavit saying 'I declare war on the US' they can call any attack in and of itself a declaration of war. and they've proven they'll play fast and loose with the 'associated force' clause as well.
Just try him as a citizen and respect the Constitution, there isn't anything to lose.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:19:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 8:17:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
That's the whole point though, if the word war has no legal meaning then how do you use it in justifying not extending rights to citizens? We're in the middle of a war on drugs, a war on obesity, a war on poverty, a war on terrorism, the word war doesn't me anything anymore.

Not necessary. It seems media tend to use metaphor to attract readers, so catch-up line such as "war on poverty" or "war or obesity" may not invoke the meaning of word "war" at all. Instead, these phrases are purposely designed to induce readers to conjure up some gruesome images pertain to war in an attempt to delineate and visualized the situation. Therefore, I believe word "war" still has a very serious meaning.

That's too broad, they're not going to have an affidavit saying 'I declare war on the US' they can call any attack in and of itself a declaration of war. and they've proven they'll play fast and loose with the 'associated force' clause as well.
Just try him as a citizen and respect the Constitution, there isn't anything to lose.
I know not. It does seem that the doctrine can be justified under extraordinary circumstance, or at least according to Department of Justice.

Aside from what we have just discussed, "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."
http://www.nytimes.com...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:21:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:19:29 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
Aside from what we have just discussed, "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."
http://www.nytimes.com...

That's fair, As long as he's eventually read them and given a lawyer...not shipped off to GTMO
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:28:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:21:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:19:29 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
Aside from what we have just discussed, "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."
http://www.nytimes.com...

That's fair, As long as he's eventually read them and given a lawyer...not shipped off to GTMO

If he is still alive of course.
qneill
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:40:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:28:45 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:21:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:19:29 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
Aside from what we have just discussed, "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."
http://www.nytimes.com...

That's fair, As long as he's eventually read them and given a lawyer...not shipped off to GTMO

If he is still alive of course.

It appears that we will find out.
--
qneill
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:41:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm honestly surprised they took him alive, I thought for sure they'd shoot the sht out of the boat and say they couldn't take a chance.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:43:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:40:05 PM, qneill wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:28:45 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:21:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:19:29 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
Aside from what we have just discussed, "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."
http://www.nytimes.com...

That's fair, As long as he's eventually read them and given a lawyer...not shipped off to GTMO

If he is still alive of course.

It appears that we will find out.

Yea. Soon we will.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:44:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Everyone see the picture yet?
He seemed to be in decent shape, assuming he's not shot in the head.
https://twitter.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:46:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:41:47 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I'm honestly surprised they took him alive, I thought for sure they'd shoot the sht out of the boat and say they couldn't take a chance.

What is worse than death? The seventh circle of Hell.

I believe FBI wants to interrogate him in order to find out if he has any connection with terrorist organizations.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:47:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:44:14 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Everyone see the picture yet?
He seemed to be in decent shape, assuming he's not shot in the head.
https://twitter.com...

Not bad for a 19 year old (I mean shape), except for the blood of course.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:52:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He's a skinny little bastard, looks exactly like I do when I'm laying down.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 10:52:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:47:43 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:44:14 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Everyone see the picture yet?
He seemed to be in decent shape, assuming he's not shot in the head.
https://twitter.com...

Not bad for a 19 year old (I mean shape), except for the blood of course.
The older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was interviewed by the F.B.I. in 2011 when a foreign government asked the bureau to determine if he had extremist ties, according to a senior law enforcement official. The government knew that he was planning to travel there and feared that he might be a risk, the official said.

The official would not say which government made the request, but Tamerlan Tsarnaev"s father said that he traveled to Russia in 2012.

"They had something on him and were concerned about him and him traveling to their region," the official said. The F.B.I. conducted a review, examining Web sites that he had visited, trying to determine whether he was spending time with extremists and ultimately interviewing him. The F.B.I. concluded that he was not a threat. "We didn"t find anything on him that was derogatory," the official said.

It may explain why FBI wants to keep him alive, if possible.
http://www.nytimes.com...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 1:15:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:41:47 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I'm honestly surprised they took him alive, I thought for sure they'd shoot the sht out of the boat and say they couldn't take a chance.

No, the boat owner was a contributor to the Boston Mayor.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 1:16:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:21:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:19:29 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
Aside from what we have just discussed, "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."
http://www.nytimes.com...

That's fair, As long as he's eventually read them and given a lawyer...not shipped off to GTMO

He will, once the public safety concern is resolved. Also, the case is too high profile to just ship him away.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 1:19:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:52:45 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:47:43 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:44:14 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Everyone see the picture yet?
He seemed to be in decent shape, assuming he's not shot in the head.
https://twitter.com...

Not bad for a 19 year old (I mean shape), except for the blood of course.
The older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was interviewed by the F.B.I. in 2011 when a foreign government asked the bureau to determine if he had extremist ties, according to a senior law enforcement official. The government knew that he was planning to travel there and feared that he might be a risk, the official said.

The official would not say which government made the request, but Tamerlan Tsarnaev"s father said that he traveled to Russia in 2012.

"They had something on him and were concerned about him and him traveling to their region," the official said. The F.B.I. conducted a review, examining Web sites that he had visited, trying to determine whether he was spending time with extremists and ultimately interviewing him. The F.B.I. concluded that he was not a threat. "We didn"t find anything on him that was derogatory," the official said.

It may explain why FBI wants to keep him alive, if possible.
http://www.nytimes.com...

What?! How dare they watch over someone like that! What kind of police state have we turned into. He should have the freedom to go wherever he wants, hang out with whoever he wants, and learn whatever he wants and it is no one else's damn business!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 1:22:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 1:19:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:52:45 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:47:43 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:44:14 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Everyone see the picture yet?
He seemed to be in decent shape, assuming he's not shot in the head.
https://twitter.com...

Not bad for a 19 year old (I mean shape), except for the blood of course.
The older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was interviewed by the F.B.I. in 2011 when a foreign government asked the bureau to determine if he had extremist ties, according to a senior law enforcement official. The government knew that he was planning to travel there and feared that he might be a risk, the official said.

The official would not say which government made the request, but Tamerlan Tsarnaev"s father said that he traveled to Russia in 2012.

"They had something on him and were concerned about him and him traveling to their region," the official said. The F.B.I. conducted a review, examining Web sites that he had visited, trying to determine whether he was spending time with extremists and ultimately interviewing him. The F.B.I. concluded that he was not a threat. "We didn"t find anything on him that was derogatory," the official said.

It may explain why FBI wants to keep him alive, if possible.
http://www.nytimes.com...

What?! How dare they watch over someone like that! What kind of police state have we turned into. He should have the freedom to go wherever he wants, hang out with whoever he wants, and learn whatever he wants and it is no one else's damn business!

Their concerns turned out to be well-placed in the end, though.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 11:17:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:41:47 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I'm honestly surprised they took him alive, I thought for sure they'd shoot the sht out of the boat and say they couldn't take a chance.

he was weaken by the loss f blood from the shoot out with his brother
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 11:20:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 10:21:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/19/2013 10:19:29 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
Aside from what we have just discussed, "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence."
http://www.nytimes.com...

That's fair, As long as he's eventually read them and given a lawyer...not shipped off to GTMO

Guantanamo is to the US as Siberia is to Russia.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 2:00:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The public safety exemption allows him not be read Miranda rights so long as a public danger exists. It seems that would include questioning about connections to other terrorists. However, if the defendant is not read his rights that only means that statements he makes cannot be used to convict hm. There is so much evidence it's doubtful that any statements are necessary for conviction.

During WWII, the Supreme Court ruled that receiving training from a foreign power was a de facto renunciation of citizenship. Then the training was conducted overseas. I wonder if being trained by a foreign power via the internet would be counted as a similar renunciation of citizenship? The logic is that working for the interests of a foreign force always renounces citizenship.

In practice, Obama has said the Administration will not attempt to remove citizenship rights, no matter what, so it's not going to happen. The terrorist bombing clearly violates ws that require the death penalty. It'll be interesting to see if the charges are watered down to avoid it.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 4:18:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 2:00:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The public safety exemption allows him not be read Miranda rights so long as a public danger exists. It seems that would include questioning about connections to other terrorists. However, if the defendant is not read his rights that only means that statements he makes cannot be used to convict hm.

yeah, they don't have to read miranda rights...

But, what if he asks for a lawyer? Do they provide him with one straightaway??

Unless he's termed an enemy combatant/and or, as you said, held to have renounced his citizenship.. then he has the right to a speedy trial.. and I'd think they have to provide him with a lawyer.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 11:34:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think if you're going to declare that you're so disenfranchised with the systems and safeties of a country that you'll go to the extreme of committing terrorism against its people and property then you shouldn't expect that country to turn around and protect you under the laws and checks and balances that you have wilfully shunned.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?