If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Continuing Boston discussion, high-fives, hell yeahs and whatnot here   (nydailynews.com) divider line 1583
    More: Followup, Tsarnaev, Watertown, suicide bomb, New Bedford, vests  
•       •       •

6513 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 12:18 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1583 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | » | Last
 
2013-04-20 06:46:23 AM
Dammit! I was with this thing from the beginning till about 6:45pm last night when I finally fell asleep, lulled to unconsciousness by the chirping of the police scanner.

Anyway, glad they got the guy. High fives all around.
 
2013-04-20 06:48:22 AM

andychrist420: Kittypie070: [mediaoutrage.files.wordpress.com image 408x500]

"this administration can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere,
without due process as long as we call them a terrorist"
.
sorry folks,
but I guess
this guy
never existed
huh?

He's been gone 5 years.  Let it go.  Live in the now!


like how Republicans are still obsessed with St. Reagan?
 
2013-04-20 06:48:40 AM

ISO15693: You have to admit - he's like a good luck charm for the US since he's been elected... averted the financial meltdown, got Bin Laden, got the Boston bomber, got health care reform - it's like everything he's involved with turns out perfectly. Maybe we should seriously think about amending the constitution again to allow more than two terms for this guy. It couldn't hurt.


Smarted.
 
2013-04-20 06:49:19 AM

gweilo8888: And how about Bin Laden -- what did he do there? I highly doubt he made command decisions; they'll have been left to people with experience who knew what they were doing. Again, all he will have done is delegate and make promises about checks being signed.


I would hope that the decision to run a fake medical mission as part of the hunt, thereby endangering doctors around the world and seriously damaging efforts to eliminate polio in the interest of short term US political manoeuvring  went to the top.
 
2013-04-20 07:02:21 AM
*dreams reasonably happy dreams*
 
2013-04-20 07:05:08 AM

jso2897: Tommy Moo: cretinbob: Tommy Moo: Pretty much. I have never understood why the left in this country is the group that defense these shiatbirds. Everything about Islam fundamentalist Christianity is regressive and right winged. They hate women and homosexuals, view science and modern medicine as human arrogance, and believe that apostasy carries a death sentence.

And that's the "moderate" ones. The only difference between moderate and fundamentalist Muslims is that moderate ones just believe abhorrent, right-winged horseshiat quietly, and aren't actively trying to murder us to spread it.

Yeah, the problem is fundamentalism, not which magic book you read.

"The distinction between 'fundamentalists' and 'moderates' has not really emerged in the Muslim world. Most Muslims are 'fundamentalist' in the sense that they really appear to believe that the Koran is the literal and inerrant word of God. In any case, Islamic fundamentalism is only a problem for us because the fundamentals of Islam are a problem for us. There is a pervasive piece of wishful thinking circulating among religious moderates, and it could get a lot of us killed. The idea is that all religions, at their core, teach the same thing. This is myth. The principal tenet of Jainism is non-harming. Observant Jains will literally not harm a fly. Fundamentalist Jainism and fundamentalist Islam do not have the same consequences, neither logically nor behaviorally. Read the Koran. Osama bin Laden is playing it more or less by the book. Anyone who says that there is no basis for his worldview in the doctrine of Islam is either dangerously ignorant or just dangerous.

"We must hope that the Muslim world is full of moderates who abhor the worldview of Osama bin Laden. But where are they? We cannot just assume that they exist. And the horrible truth is that if they do exist, they will be easily marginalized by their coreligionists."

-Sam Harris

How much do I have to hate Muslims to get you to shut the f**k up about ...


You don't have to hate Muslims; disapproving of Islam will suffice. Everything I've posted has been in response to someone someone else has directed at me. In any case, it looks like you've run out of steam, because you've fallen back on the "You're being a jerk" argument.
 
2013-04-20 07:09:21 AM

draa: robohobo: Christina Hendricks. Firefly. Mad Men

Ok, thanks. Maybe I'll have to watch Mad Men if that's the case. I've heard it a damn good show but I've yet to tune in. I like Justified though but there's nobody like her on there.


Nobody like Christina Hendricks on anywhere, she seems to be one of a kind. Even speaking as a woman, I think we could do with more like her.
 
2013-04-20 07:13:42 AM

schultzb: FTFY

/believes in zero gods
//spent over a decade studying religion; they're all full of shiat
///knows from reading your many posts here, as well as your profile insert, you're a troll; no retort required (hint: none will be acknowledged, so further tantrums will be solely for your own need to feel important on teh interwebs.Mission accomplishedTM?)


Do me a favor and block me, k?
 
2013-04-20 07:16:52 AM

DamnYankees: To repeat,  Obama saying terrorists failed because Boston refused to be intimidated and we refused to be terrorized.

Give me a farking break. We cowered, just like we do at the mere thought of all terrorism. 2 kids set of a couple bombs and we competely shut down a major city, divert the national attention, deploy insane amounts of resources and top it all off by not Mirandizing the guy.

I'm honestly sickened right now and the 'celebrating' all this crap.

I wish I had more confidence, but we're knowingly letting innocent people starve to death in Gitmo and we not only don't help them, but a majority of AMericans probably are happy to see them die even though the US government has officially proclaimed them innocent.

Label someone a terrorist in this country and I have zero confidence in our rule of law.


fark you

Signed

Boston
 
2013-04-20 07:18:42 AM
I was kinda chuckling at all those people clapping for the cops catching this guy.

I mean, I can appreciate that, for the people of Watertwon, it was a clear and imminent danger, since he was in  their neighbourhood.

But let's be honest here.  It took, what, more than 10,000 cops, the entire shutting down of one of America's largest cities, and more than 24 hours to find a 19 year old punk ON FOOT who ended up being in somebody's backyard, bleeding all over their boat.

AND the cops were IN the exact area where he was found, and they neglected to do any kind of house-to-house searches.  It took the neighbour calling in the fact that he saw a ladder up against his neighbour's boat for the cops to turn back around en masse and hightail back to where the kid was..

$333 million dollars a day to shut down Boston, in addition to probably millions of dollars in O.T. for the cops.

Not law enforcement's finest hour.  Does anyone know if the punk was even armed at the time of his arrest?  Conscious?
 
2013-04-20 07:30:34 AM

DamnYankees: To repeat,  Obama saying terrorists failed because Boston refused to be intimidated and we refused to be terrorized.

Give me a farking break. We cowered, just like we do at the mere thought of all terrorism. 2 kids set of a couple bombs and we competely shut down a major city, divert the national attention, deploy insane amounts of resources and top it all off by not Mirandizing the guy.

I'm honestly sickened right now and the 'celebrating' all this crap.

I wish I had more confidence, but we're knowingly letting innocent people starve to death in Gitmo and we not only don't help them, but a majority of AMericans probably are happy to see them die even though the US government has officially proclaimed them innocent.

Label someone a terrorist in this country and I have zero confidence in our rule of law.


All it takes these days for your fellow Americans to want you dead is for a person in authority to say you deserve it. Watching this entire thing last night it amazed me to realize "suspected" had finally finished its long journey to becoming synonymous with "guilty". After all this hullabaloo, there's no way this guy isn't going to be convicted, even if in some bizarre turn evidence were to arise exonerating him. And yet media and law enforcement officials keep talking about it like its uncertain, as if principled dedication to our system's written rules 1) exists on their part and 2) would make it impossible to try and convict a criminal. God knows how many innocent men we've executed in our prison system, yet these 250K a year hysterics are worried giving him an honest trial would be one step off handing him the prison keys and sending the guards home for the day.

Don't even get me started on this Miranda nonsense. When did American elites start thinking that not telling someone their rights means they don't have them? "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." Inalienable means you can't take them away; when you ignore those rights you aren't removing them for convenience's sake, you aren't even denying them to that person, you're violating rights that can never be removed from that person in a criminal violation of our proscribed values, the Constitution which they inform, and the government our ancestors have built upon them both.
 
2013-04-20 07:36:00 AM

that bosnian sniper: DamnYankees: To repeat...

...as I was just mentioning when the last thread got kiboshed, considering the media's batting average this week I'm hardly surprised they'd cite it as they did. And, if it's the AG's spouting that crap, I'm genuinely disappointed -- but hardly surprised -- in them they'd continue this Bush-era bullshiat.

The kid is a naturalized citizen. He has rights, deserves his day in court and so does Boston and the rest of the country. We're not frickin' Syria.


From what MSNBC's scroll was saying, the President himself declared his rights wouldn't be read to him. So we 1)have a president who thinks a person's legal rights only apply if that person knows about them and 2)thinks he has the power to void those rights by fiat.
 
2013-04-20 07:42:49 AM

yukichigai: Stoj: Turns out no Miranda rights after all.

Thanks Obama!

Let's just nip this in the bud:

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulle ti n/february2011/legal_digest

The feds can legally question him about things which are of an immediate concern to public safety, like say all those damn bombs he and his brother scattered around the place.  None of what they ask him can be used in court, and if they stray away from questions concerning public safety the feds can have the crap sued out of them.

They aren't Mirandizing him because it's more important to find the rest of the bombs than it is to build a case against him.  Once they clear the area he'll be read his rights.


Horseshiat. If that were the case, then they wouldn't have lifted the curfew last night upon his capture but waited to read him Miranda until hours later. They let people out of their houses because even then they knew the area was safe, and more importantly, so they'd have a crowd for their powerfully stage managed photo-ops. They held off Miranda because they're stooges who think that actually changes anything from a rights perspective and because not reading them makes them "tough". It's just more of the juvenile posturing propaganda that so many commentators, politicians, and citizens apparently find impressive as all hell.
 
2013-04-20 07:43:34 AM
gweilo8888

farkplug: Turns out I was right, so fark all you unnecessarily biatchy farkers, who will no doubt break out with the idiotic slashies and/or a welcometofark.jpg.

- - -

Uh, no it doesn't. Turns out you were wrong. And I'm gonna guess that your "being right" about the beltway snipers was exactly the same thing -- pretending to be right when it turned out you were wrong.

I quote:

"Call me stupid, call me a troll, but all adds up to foreign, to me." <-- I'll give you a 50/50 on this one, but then it was a 50-50 guess.


Of course it was a farking guess, you farking moron. Do you think that I can look at random pictures of perfect strangers and come up with their farking DNA profiles and Social Security numbers? How generous of you to give me a 50/50. It DOES add up to foreign. You had them pegged as American-born Irish whities, or was it foreign brown-skinned? I can't keep track, but whatever it was, you were wrong, so you're pissed off at me. It's no bit deal. Just suck it up, you were wrong.

Born overseas, yes. Foreign? Not really. They'd been living in the US for 11 years. That's 42% of the older one's life, and 58% of the younger one's life.

DUH! I also said they were probably first generation, hence the weird hairstyles and the almost quaint and contrived sporting of American clothes. The white hat that was way too big. Along similar lines, someone ELSE pointed out that they carried their backpacks like elderly people. I never once suggested they were elderly. I suggested that they were probably practically dressed by foreigners or other immigrants. "Wear your hat like this. Good. Now backpack! Good!" If you couldn't understand that that was meant to be English as spoken by a non-native speaker, then screw you. I can't help you.

Both were US-educated in higher education, and one of the pair will have also done most of his lower education in the US. One was a permanent resident, and the other was a citizen. They are, essentially, foreign-looking Americans.

Oh, really? So you think they're "foreign-looking?" And this differs from my guess, how, exactly? They just got American citizenships--perp 2 just seven months ago. I didn't address their education at all. They are first-generation Americans. I nailed that. Suck it up.

"someone earlier mentioned that they must be middle aged because they carry their backpacks on one shoulder. That's another argument for foreign. "Here, wear hoodies! Good! Now white cap going to backwards! High on your head like this! Good! Here, wearing knapsack on one shoulder, like this! Good! Now you both American!" <-- no beans. They're not middle-aged, but your barely-coherent posts make it hard to tell whether you were claiming that as part of your argument. Together they've lived precisely half their lives here, though. They knew precisely what Americans look and dress like..And there's absolutely nothing to back up your suggestion that they had somebody else dressing and coaching them.

I guess you've never met many first-generation immigrants who don't typically dress in head-to-toe American gear. They have to learn these things, just as they have to learn other cultural queues, to fit in.

"I'm on a college campus almost daily. The guys with the long curly hair, including Andy, have long hair, but it's cut differently. The hair is layered but it doesn't look like 3 steps in a set of stairs in profile, like "whitey's" does. I doubt very much that his hair was cut locally." And here's where you went the furthest off the rails. You thought they'd been in the country such a short time that their last hair cuts happened overseas. Turns out they'd been having their hair cut in the US for half their lives, and their entire adult lives.

On this point, I admit I was off. You must be filled with glee. However, consider that his mother worked in a beauty spa and serviced people at home--facials, etc., for the past eight years. She was also said to wear eccentric (read: foreign) outfits until recently, when she adopted black, conservative Muslim clothing. I wouldn't be surprised if she cut his hair at home. It's not that huge of a stretch, and I don't know about you, but first generation immigrants OFTEN (careful, now, I didn't type "always") have a distinctive style. Their parents do influence them a bit, you know.

So, let's recap. You thought they were foreign, (possibly elderly) people with no experience or knowledge of the United States, being dressed and coached by a third party who themselves was barely able to speak English, and having been in the country for perhaps a few weeks at most.

Um, no. I thought they were foreign, nix on the "elderly", nix on the "no amount of experience/knowledge of the US" (didn't comment at all on this), I stand by the being coached on being dressed by a second party (American) or probably someone closer to home and also first generation immigrant--perhaps their esthetician mother, probably not wrong--did you not see their perfect, cliched "all-American" clothes?? and nix on the having been in the country "for perhaps a few weeks at most". I never made such an idiotic claim. For such a smart-ass, you're pretty sloppy with the facts.

You missed on almost every count. They were long-time US residents (and in one case, a citizen) who knew the country well, dressed themselves, most likely operated on their own initiative, were clearly fluent English speakers, and had spent half their lives in the United States.

If by "almost every count" you mean ONE, then you need to learn to count. The US resident stuff, again, is struck out by my CORRECT guess that they were first-generation immigrants if they were not outright foreigners. I did not say whether or not they knew the country well, but how do you know they know the country well? Hell, many tenth-generation Americans don't know the country well. I made no statement about the fluency of THEIR English.

Stop patting yourself on the back and admit you're talking a load of cobblers.

I was never patting myself on the back. It was the attack of the bunch of False Flag! idiots that I was defending myself against, because I dared to suggest the perps weren't "whitey-white Americans."

And either provide a link to back up your claims about being "right" last time, or admit you made that up to inflate your own ego, too.

A link to what? Don't you ever just have ideas? Do you farking log everything that you think online? Why? I never thought it was a big deal that I correctly got it then, so why the fark would I have run around posting it online? Anyway, wasn't that, like, ten years ago? Why would I have a bookmark to such a link handy even if I had posted it somewhere online, unless I was some kind of egotistic or neurotic asshole? I have barely even thought about it until the other day here, when some farktard attacked me just for having a contrary opinion about what the perps' identity might be. I don't see why I was attacked. We were ALL guessing, for fark's sake.

Arrogant, and, (this fills me with schadenfreude) mistaken farktards need to be called out when they turn against another farker for merely throwing their opinions in a thread which was pure speculation, anyway. But especially when the farktards incorrectly accuse them of making certain claims (that would be you) that they never did. The reaction against me (calling me a liar and an attention whore and a racist, etc.) was idiotic and uncalled for. Don't let it happen again. Thanks, have a great weekend.
 
2013-04-20 07:46:52 AM
Apparently now justice equals a sporting event. Terrorism fear mongering is ruining us.

For anyone keeping score at home, we are either one step closer to Idiocracy or 1984.
 
2013-04-20 07:50:22 AM

torquestripe: Skarekrough: styckx: It's amazing Alex Jones is still labeling this guy a Patsy and this entire thing was a false flag operation.

Michael Bay couldn't have written this script if given 5 years..

As a writer I concede to the wingnuts on a nearly daily basis.

Nothing I could come up with rivals some of the theories Jones and Glen Beck have managed to orchestrate in their minds.  It's breathtaking.

But it's also terrifying.  These are the same people that go out into the world and order in an IHOP and are trusted to complete the transaction without an incident.

Terrifying, as opposed to a pressure cooker bomb political statement.


Yes, and their statement couldn't be more clear; we hate running shoes and families of people who buy them frequently.

Give me a break.  We know NOTHING about WHY those two did what they did.  NOTHING.

So unless you've got their manifesto and would like to share with the rest of the class please don't pretend like you know more than the rest of us.
 
2013-04-20 07:51:06 AM

Heron: that bosnian sniper: DamnYankees: To repeat...

...as I was just mentioning when the last thread got kiboshed, considering the media's batting average this week I'm hardly surprised they'd cite it as they did. And, if it's the AG's spouting that crap, I'm genuinely disappointed -- but hardly surprised -- in them they'd continue this Bush-era bullshiat.

The kid is a naturalized citizen. He has rights, deserves his day in court and so does Boston and the rest of the country. We're not frickin' Syria.

From what MSNBC's scroll was saying, the President himself declared his rights wouldn't be read to him. So we 1)have a president who thinks a person's legal rights only apply if that person knows about them and 2)thinks he has the power to void those rights by fiat.


Don't blame Obama on this one, this started with Miranda v. Arizona . You might want to direct you grudge to the seated Justices presiding over that case...
 
2013-04-20 07:51:45 AM

bobbette: DamnYankees: Give me a farking break. We cowered, just like we do at the mere thought of all terrorism. 2 kids set of a couple bombs and we competely shut down a major city, divert the national attention, deploy insane amounts of resources and top it all off by not Mirandizing the guy.

Shutting down the city was  smart.  It kept people out of harm's way and out of the way of the cops trying to do their jobs.  It also eliminated the possibility of people trying to take out "terrorists" themselves.  "Stay the fark home, Boston" was a good call.

Within a day or two of the bombings they coordinated a massive manhunt and caught these guys, one of them alive.  They did good.

And they did Mirandize him, actually.


Considering that the suspect was apparently unconscious, bleeding in some guy's yard all day, no it wasn't. Shutting down the city actually prevented them from "capturing" him at hours earlier.
 
2013-04-20 07:52:26 AM

dr_blasto: Noam Chimpsky: Kittypie070: Fark It 2013-04-20 12:01:43 AM

I posted this in a redlit thread regarding the "public safety" exception to Miranda rights:

"IMO, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah I'd wather passersby had been shot, undeclared martial law....

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 221x240]


Now that I think about it, I don't think there is anywhere else in the US where you could have done something like this. Imagine them trying this "shelter in place" command in a city with Republicans living in it.  Or blacks, for that matter.

So, you're saying that you think that had this happened in some place with Republicans or blacks in it that they would have done, what, exactly?


I'm saying it would be a nonstarter. Imagine Rick Perry "Everyone in Dallas and Fort Worth, you just shelter in place until we make the world safe for you to come out again, okay?".
 
2013-04-20 07:58:12 AM
How about we bury our dead first, then have a drink?
 
2013-04-20 07:59:06 AM
bobette: No Miranda. Just saw on CBC that they are not allowing him the right to remain silent, and are bringing in a "Special Interrogations Unit".

Freedom Lite.
 
2013-04-20 08:01:33 AM

draa: robohobo: Christina Hendricks. Firefly. Mad Men

Ok, thanks. Maybe I'll have to watch Mad Men if that's the case. I've heard it a damn good show but I've yet to tune in. I like Justified though but there's nobody like her on there.


Not sure how this turned into a Hendricks thread, but I'm not complaining...

If you're going to watch Mad Men, start at the beginning.  Story arc and character development are key.

Great show.
 
2013-04-20 08:01:42 AM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Boston: the city of resilience, the city of champions


Proud of you Boston. Well done.

(My grandfather was a Bostonian Marine in WW2, he got laid on R&R in New Zealand and then farked off with no support to his child ... my father, but I am still proud to carry on his heritage with my children and my children's children)
 
2013-04-20 08:03:11 AM
 
2013-04-20 08:04:29 AM

WhyteRaven74: DamnYankees: 2 kids set of a couple bombs and we competely shut down a major city

The shut down of the city was today when the police had varying reports of potential bombs all over the place and who knows what else. There was no cowering, just erring on the side of safety for a few hours to make sure no one got blown up or otherwise hurt/killed. As for the Miranda thing, there's a long stand public safety exemption and it only lasts 48 hours.


You are so right, WhyteRaven.  I am from Brooklyn, NY and the people of Boston may be many things, but they are not cowards!  Repeat: they are not cowards.  I don't root for Boston very often, but this is one time I am proud to root for them.

The police needed to find this asshat and they needed to have everyone safe and out of the way so that they could do their jobs - and they got him.  All they needed was one vigilant citizen and the professionals come in and do it right.

Yay Boston!

Okay, now I go back and root for the Yankees!
 
2013-04-20 08:09:47 AM

Heron: bobbette: DamnYankees: Give me a farking break. We cowered, just like we do at the mere thought of all terrorism. 2 kids set of a couple bombs and we competely shut down a major city, divert the national attention, deploy insane amounts of resources and top it all off by not Mirandizing the guy.

Shutting down the city was  smart.  It kept people out of harm's way and out of the way of the cops trying to do their jobs.  It also eliminated the possibility of people trying to take out "terrorists" themselves.  "Stay the fark home, Boston" was a good call.

Within a day or two of the bombings they coordinated a massive manhunt and caught these guys, one of them alive.  They did good.

And they did Mirandize him, actually.

Considering that the suspect was apparently unconscious, bleeding in some guy's yard all day, no it wasn't. Shutting down the city actually prevented them from "capturing" him at hours earlier.


Or, I don't know, Maybe it was an adequate response for an individual who was last seen throwing explosives at cops, driving over his own brother, and carrying a weapon.

Locking down the town also did the following:
- Cut the number of bogus leads to near 0
- Cut the number of active heat signatures on the ground the cops had to check
-Removed hostage fodder.

Their tactics over the last day didn't always pan out, but were absolutely the right moves.
 
2013-04-20 08:11:53 AM

DamnYankees: To repeat,  Obama saying terrorists failed because Boston refused to be intimidated and we refused to be terrorized.

Give me a farking break. We cowered, just like we do at the mere thought of all terrorism. 2 kids set of a couple bombs and we competely shut down a major city, divert the national attention, deploy insane amounts of resources and top it all off by not Mirandizing the guy.

I'm honestly sickened right now and the 'celebrating' all this crap.

I wish I had more confidence, but we're knowingly letting innocent people starve to death in Gitmo and we not only don't help them, but a majority of AMericans probably are happy to see them die even though the US government has officially proclaimed them innocent.

Label someone a terrorist in this country and I have zero confidence in our rule of law.


Tool.  Read a book.  Think for yourself for a change.
 
2013-04-20 08:15:55 AM

BullBearMS: italie: Heron From what MSNBC's scroll was saying, the President himself declared his rights wouldn't be read to him. So we 1)have a president who thinks a person's legal rights only apply if that person knows about them and 2)thinks he has the power to void those rights by fiat.

Don't blame Obama on this one,

Why not? This is Obama's policy.

The Obama administration has created a new policy that allows investigators to waive Miranda warnings for domestic-terror suspects, even when there is not an "immediate threat," a report said Thursday.

The rule was revealed by an FBI memorandum obtained by The Wall Street Journal. It says that in "exceptional cases," investigators can hold suspects without informing them of their rights.

The policy applies where investigators "conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat."

A 1966 Supreme Court ruling said that law-enforcement officials must notify suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present for questioning. Another decision, 1n 1984, gave law enforcement the ability to question suspects for a limited time without a Miranda warning where public safety was at stake.

The 1984 exception has been used to justify interrogating domestic-terror suspects for hours without reading them their rights.

With the new rules, that exception has been significantly expanded.



I was referring to "1)" Herons complain that we as a public feel this rights need to be expressed in the first place. If anything, Obamas policy was a misguided step in the right direction.
 
2013-04-20 08:16:27 AM

ontariolightning: MmmmBacon: I'm just glad this guy is in custody, and that no one else got hurt in the chaos. Whether the Commonwealth or Feds try this guy, as long as he gets a fair trial, I'll be a happy man. We are a country of laws, this is an American citizen, and he is due his rights. If we do not give him a jury trial, the Jihadists will point at us and say "See? The Hypocrites in America claim to believe in freedom, but when it comes to a Muslim they will throw him in a box to rot!"

We simply cannot have that. I don't care what they think of us particularly, but we should not give them additional ammo to use in creating a new generation of Jihadists.

you already give them that ammo when you kill innocents in unauthorized drone strikes that the UN says is a violation of nations sovereignty. In Pakistan you kill 50 innocent civillians for1 terrorist . Few years back you accidentally wiped out 24 Pakistani soldiers.. all your country said was we regret it. Nobody got punished,


What makes you think that was an accident?

It might have been, but actually, it reminds of back during Kosovo, when we "accidentally" hit the old Chinese embassy after they bumped one of our spy planes...

You DO recall Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden...and THEY punished guys who helped FIND him.  Not to mention funneling money to extremists, trading nuclear tech, etc, etc.

While I actually tend to agree with you about drone strikes, particularly against US citizens, this ain't exactly a clean war with nice, neat front lines.
 
2013-04-20 08:21:32 AM

jakomo002: bobette: No Miranda. Just saw on CBC that they are not allowing him the right to remain silent, and are bringing in a "Special Interrogations Unit".

Freedom Lite.


Wait. Late to the thread and all but,

1. Isn't he an American citizen? By doing that, aren't they inviting a lawsuit later that could dismiss all charges?

2. I heard last night on NBC news that one of the officers did read him his Miranda rights. It went by very quickly, so I don't know if it's true. If it is, do they have to read him his rights before each interrogation?

3. Despite what this guy did, if the executive branch allows "enhanced interrogation techniques" against an American citizen, all hell will (or should) break loose.
 
2013-04-20 08:22:42 AM

Befuddled: I don't get the people who are zealously celebrating after the second bomber was caught. I'm glad he's now in custody but it isn't like some team won a championship. It's not like the harm he and his brother have done will now be undone.


Depending on his injuries, he could have done immense FUTURE harm...remember Newtown?

That was one guy, you'll recall...and led to 20 dead kids.

Two heavily armed terrorists?  We're farking lucky the death toll wasn't ten times higher.
 
2013-04-20 08:24:27 AM

PunGent: Befuddled: I don't get the people who are zealously celebrating after the second bomber was caught. I'm glad he's now in custody but it isn't like some team won a championship. It's not like the harm he and his brother have done will now be undone.

Depending on his injuries, he could have done immense FUTURE harm...remember Newtown?

That was one guy, you'll recall...and led to 20 dead kids.

Two heavily armed terrorists?  We're farking lucky the death toll wasn't ten times higher.


Plus I believe people were celebrating the massive rush of relief they felt after almost a day of lock down and fear. I'd equate it more to people cheering the fall of the Berlin wall rather than a sports championship.
 
2013-04-20 08:24:50 AM

zippythechimp: Tool.  Read a book.  Think for yourself for a change


WTF ? this is so contradictory it is ghastly

It reminds me of this....

(Fawlty towers,BBC, Manuel was almost as farking stupid as you are, but he was a fictional character, you are just that kinda farking stupid)

nerdtshirtsuk.com
 
2013-04-20 08:26:47 AM

d3sertion: d3sertion: Fubini: Here's the thing: how many of those people refused a search, and did the police do a search anyway?  If they did, it's clearly a violation of rights, and the aggrieved stand to make a lot of lawsuit money.

Lol, no.  A) They'd lose on the merits and B) Even if they somehow survived summary judgement on the merits (they couldn't), they'd lose summary judgement a summary judgment motion for lack of standing.  The only way they'd be able to show actual harm is if the officers searched their home, found something illegal, and then proceeded to arrest them based on that evidence found in an "illegal" search.  Even then, the remedy would be excluding the evidence, not a civil suit for "a lot" of money.

I guess I should acknowledge that they could theoretically bring a civil suit for trespass against the officers who "illegally" entered their home to seek monetary damages.  But again, prevailing on the merits of this case would be the legal equivalent of scaling Mt. Everest naked.  And even if you did, damages would be limited to the expense of any damage the officers actually caused.

People have tried and failed with much stronger arguments.  I've seen one case where police serving a search warrant kicked in the wrong door and flash banged the occupants and even they couldn't recover for the cost of door.


I recall a case from the 80's, Long Island I think, where a guy fired his gardener, who then snitched on him to the DEA with no basis at all; DEA literally tears his house apart looking for the non-existent drugs, and the homeowner got stuck with about $40,000 in repair bills.

Not sure if he ever won on appeal, but that takes money and time just to get back to square one.
 
2013-04-20 08:26:52 AM
Yeah! He was caught two years after the FBI interviewed them as possible suspects having completed a bombing.

What the fark does the FBI do besides coaching potential terrorists or letting the real ones go? That isn't a farking conspiracy theory but fact if you actually read.
 
2013-04-20 08:30:40 AM

jakomo002: bobette: No Miranda. Just saw on CBC that they are not allowing him the right to remain silent, and are bringing in a "Special Interrogations Unit".

Freedom Lite.


aren't they in danger of having his case thrown out of court on a technicality? he's still an american. he still has rights.
 
2013-04-20 08:31:04 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: shower_in_my_socks: If there is a bomb-throwing, homicidal maniac carjacking his way through my neighborhood, the cops can come the fark into my house if it saves lives.

And that's your choice to allow them to do so. My concern is with the people who chose not to surrender their rights in the face of danger, those who would not trade essential liberty for temporary security, whose homes were ransacked regardless.


I agree that's a serious concern...and civilian and judicial oversight of the police is an ongoing necessity...but did that actually happen in this case?

Not being snarky; the reports I read were along the lines of "guy finds his door open, asks cops to sweep his house".

Now, you could argue people felt intimidated if a heavily armed squad of cops demanded to search, but did that actually happen?
 
2013-04-20 08:35:03 AM

illannoyin: Anyone else enjoying the irony that he's being treated at Beth Israel hospital?

Also, large breasted prom date as requested...

[i.imgur.com image 625x838]


Heh...would it be mean to draw a discrete little Star of David on whatever IV bag he's getting?

"NOOOO!!!! JOOO BLOOD!!!! AAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!"
 
2013-04-20 08:39:09 AM

FlashHarry: jakomo002: bobette: No Miranda. Just saw on CBC that they are not allowing him the right to remain silent, and are bringing in a "Special Interrogations Unit".

Freedom Lite.

aren't they in danger of having his case thrown out of court on a technicality? he's still an american. he still has rights.


Because only Americans have rights. That's how low you've sunk.
 
2013-04-20 08:39:18 AM
So, Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.

The Feds do.

I get that a bombing is covered under federal law, however:  would the federal death penalty apply here? Yes, the US executed Timothy McVeigh, but he also destroyed a federal building and killed federal agents. No federal agents, employees or facilities were affected by the bombing.

Logic would indicate that federal charges would not result in the death penalty being applied. And, of course, the state charges wouldn't have that possibility either.

Here's a list of federal laws providing for the death penalty:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty

I see a provision for death resulting from transporting explosives, but not an intentional explosion that doesn't involve federal or foreign/interstate commerce. I also see first-degree murder, but that seems to be overly broad, since that's always a state issue unless there are special circumstances that make it a federal crime.
 
2013-04-20 08:40:15 AM
Holy fark, this thread is still going?
 
2013-04-20 08:40:26 AM

Fark It: shower_in_my_socks: doglover: shower_in_my_socks: Maybe you can share with us your professional law enforcement background that makes you such a great judge about whether the ATF, FBI, and police and SWAT in a major US city, were all "amateurs."

He was talking about the terrorists, not the cops, in the sentence you posted.


Fine, but the sentiment of his post was the same. He thinks the law enforcement was "an embarrassment." Well fark him. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but this what the law enforcement pulled off in Boston these past 24 hours was farking incredible. And playing it down like it was just some "teenager" -- f*ck, man. That d!ckhead maimed 200 farking people, killed a cop, and seriously wounded another one. It's not like they were teenieboppers throwing rocks at windows.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine and shot the president.  He was captured in an hour, without cell phones, FLIR, helicopters, or tanks roaming the streets, and he wasn't lying in a pool of his own blood.


Otoh, it took 12 days to catch Booth after he killed Lincoln, also in the pre-cell phone, pre-helicopter era.

Catching criminals is often a matter of luck; LEOs in any era are always reacting to the crime, so the criminal has the initiative, at least to begin with.
 
2013-04-20 08:41:31 AM

evoke: Because only Americans have rights. That's how low you've sunk.


fark you. i did't say that, and you farking well know it. "he's an american" was a preemptive strike against those who would label him a "foreign combatant" because of his chechen roots and funny name.
 
2013-04-20 08:42:30 AM

HaywoodJablonski: derpy: HaywoodJablonski: When's it safe to resume looking down our noses at Boston again? May?

Penguins game tomorrow.

Cool, because Boston clam chowder is an abomination, and the world needs to know it


You are worse than the terrorists.  Worse, I say!  Back to your reddish tomato hell, fiend!
 
2013-04-20 08:45:20 AM

BullBearMS: expanded.


Heron: Miranda .


To you and each of you and all of the other legal experts here:  We don't know yet whether the cops have asked Tsarnaev, the suspect, even one single question yet, or tried to.  His Miranda rights would apply only at such time as he is subjected to an interrogation.
 
2013-04-20 08:46:30 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Stoj: Turns out no Miranda rights after all.

Thanks Obama!

Where the fark does this "right to remain silent" bullshiat come from in the first place? I ain't finding it in the 5th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution.


Are you being sarcastic?  It's a reasonable inference from the right against self-incrimination.  It's kind of important...it was part of our beef with King George.

5th Am. text:  "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
 
2013-04-20 08:46:59 AM

keylock71: Those biatching about the "failure" of the authorities are a bit curious, though... The bombs went off on Monday and by Friday they had killed one of the suspects in a insane shootout involving homemade bombs and had captured the second suspect after basically isolating this kid and removing any possible means of escape. The loss of one police officer and the critical wounding of another are horrible, but this could have been much worse. Obviously, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but from what I saw, law enforcement did a bang up job and the citizens of Boston, Cambridge, and Watertown were all extremely cooperative and helpful.


I'm normally one of those criticizing law enforcement for the 99% of their actions that make the 1% look bad, but in this case I would have been right there on the side of the road applauding the emergency vehicles as they went by.  This time they got it right and performed their role as civil defenders admirably.

For a comparison, all one has to do is look at the Dorner case.  There was another supposed madman with no reserve about killing innocent people that raised a swarm of police pursuit.  Only there the police were so set on revenge at all costs that instead of fulfilling their primary role as public servants they released themselves into their true nature of violent sociopaths and opened fire on innocent civilians with blatant disregard for the laws they supposedly swore to uphold.

The Boston responders created a stark contrast of what officers should be as opposed to what they unfortunately all too often really are.
 
2013-04-20 08:47:14 AM

clyph: BullBearMS: Remember this guy before he turned into Bush 2.0?

Yep.  Took him like, what, 18 months to go from "this administration will respect the rule of law" to "this administration can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, without due process as long as we call them a terrorist"


You guys across the pond are pretty gullible! At least us frenchies knew our president was a joke even before he was elected...They're figure heads for long term policies and agendas! The flimsy definition of a "terrorist" by the patriot act was a sure enough warning.
 
2013-04-20 08:49:12 AM
I just woke up. When I went to bed, the story was that the Hat Brothers went to 7/11 for a Big Gulp and a microwave burrito, and just happened to be there when some random fools robbed the place. The cops show up to the robbery in progress and find the HBs as well. Boom, shooty stuff, the chase is on. MSM seems to have backed off of that this morning. So is that not the story anymore? If not, what's the new story of how this all got started yesterday.

Also, is there any more on the three White Hat friends who were taken away in cuffs? Do we know what's up with that?

Or, now that there are no more live exciting things to watch (man, that wacky raccoon) has this thread completely disolved into a politics tab partisan pissing match?
 
2013-04-20 08:50:59 AM

dr_blasto: Maybe some of them mean it, maybe some are just emotional. For fun, look at the handles that are all about straining the dude up straight away or who are saying fark his 5th amendment rights. How many of them are the 2A gun rights people that don't want to have to undergo background checks to exercise their rights?


I've made this same observation (in a very indirect way) to my Facebook friends this morning.
 
Displayed 50 of 1583 comments

First | « | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report