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.

(Huffington Post)   Lindsey Graham says that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans with funny names and dark hair   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 383
    More: Sick, Lindsey Graham, Mirandize, Boston, Americans, underwear bomber, Chechen, enemy combatant, ndaa  
•       •       •

8955 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2013 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 02:40:55 PM

The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: The 48 hours thing? Sounds reasonable. After that, read him his rights, give him a lawyer and stand him before a judge and jury.

While we're at it, let's do that to everyone in GITMO.


It's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.


Wow. This thread went full retard in about 2 dozen posts. Good job.
 
2013-04-20 02:48:31 PM
How often does Lindsey Graham have to change shorts?  The guys seems to be in a near constant state of shiatting his pants.  Also: Oh boy a gun thread.  God forbid at least one thread here not turn into a gun thread.
 
2013-04-20 02:49:05 PM

vpb: No, like calling a lunatic fringe right wing extremist a hillbilly, although that is a bit unfair to non crazy Appalachian people.


Damn straight it is. >:[
/Hillbilly without a gun.
 
2013-04-20 02:49:09 PM

The_Sponge: vpb: The_Sponge:

Original like what?  Calling a gun owner a "hillbilly"?

No, like calling a lunatic fringe right wing extremist a hillbilly, although that is a bit unfair to non crazy Appalachian people.


Blah blah......I'm on the lunatic fringe because I realize that bans on magazines and certain firearms are ineffective and unconstitutional.


Christ can you fark off already with the threadjack. You retards have a daily thread for your stupid rants so no need to take over every other thread.
 
2013-04-20 02:50:46 PM
The best part is people who never even realized that there was a very narrow exception to the Miranda obligation are now strongly advocating that it definitely applies in this situation.
 
2013-04-20 02:51:32 PM

sammyk: Come on guys. We all know the only important part of the constitution is the 2nd amendment. We wont be 3rd world savages if we torture the guy. What's the worst we could become?


Republicans? :D
 
2013-04-20 02:52:41 PM

danvon: The best part is people who never even realized that there was a very narrow exception to the Miranda obligation are now strongly advocating that it definitely applies in this situation.


It's nice to learn new things. I think 48 hours is reasonable in these kinds of situations. Just as long as they don't classify him as an enemy combatant, he'll get his lawyer in 48 hours, right?
 
2013-04-20 02:53:13 PM
Lindsey Graham is a lesbian.
I know its shocking.
She even uses the mens room.
She is that butch.
Oh but don't let that little bulge in her pants fool you. It is a strap-on.
She even pees at the urinal via small tube.

/Republicans love war as it is quite profitable.
//Lindsey Graham is just another traitor to the Constitution of the U.S.A.
 
2013-04-20 02:54:02 PM
Beyonce Knowles, Atari Bigby, and Reince Priebus nervously shift.
 
2013-04-20 02:54:06 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: He's just saying what every Republican senator is thinking.


NDAA 2011

But I'll never use it.

Not me.

No sir.
 
2013-04-20 02:54:16 PM
That bit about the miranda exemption...

Don't talk to the police.
 
2013-04-20 02:55:54 PM

kxs401: am and his ilk can do FAR more damage to America than any terrorist.


Amen
 
2013-04-20 02:57:06 PM

NewportBarGuy: danvon: The best part is people who never even realized that there was a very narrow exception to the Miranda obligation are now strongly advocating that it definitely applies in this situation.

It's nice to learn new things. I think 48 hours is reasonable in these kinds of situations. Just as long as they don't classify him as an enemy combatant, he'll get his lawyer in 48 hours, right?


And as long as the never even attempt to use anything he says in those 48 hours in court; against him or anyone else.
 
2013-04-20 02:57:59 PM

The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: The 48 hours thing? Sounds reasonable. After that, read him his rights, give him a lawyer and stand him before a judge and jury.

While we're at it, let's do that to everyone in GITMO.


It's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.



Oh, come on now. Even Obama said he respects the rights of hobbyists, collectors, target shooters and hunters.

And we all know the Founding Fathers loved hobbyists, collectors, target shooters and hunters, and that's why they put that amendment in there.
 
2013-04-20 02:58:04 PM
How do I get on the NRA's or Obama administration's payroll for posting about gun control? I could use some extra cash and will argue either way.

About TFA. If a person is a U.S. citizen and their crimes are committed on U.S. soil against the U.S. then you should be treated like every other citizen. It's called the farking Bill of RIGHTS.
 
2013-04-20 02:58:32 PM
If it was the brother who died we were talking about I "might" consider enemy combatant because he only had a green card, no citizenship.  But the one they got got his citizenship  last September 11.  Even if he was plotting the attacks back then, he still gets his rights.
 
2013-04-20 03:00:35 PM
America is "a battlefield because the terrorists think it is," Graham told The Washington Post. "It sure would be nice to have a drone up there."

This line of thinking is far, far more dangerous than any bomb.

I'd rather be blown to bits than live in an America you'd imagine, Mr. Graham. Fortunately, America is a better place than that; in spite of you.
 
2013-04-20 03:02:09 PM
Go fark yourself, Lindsey.
 
2013-04-20 03:02:24 PM
I find it sad that, today, 20 years after the FBI raid on the Branch Davidians, many of the same people who criticize the Clinton administration for depriving the Davidians' lives and liberties without due process would gleefully deprive Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's life and/or liberty without due process by branding him an "enemy combatant" and sending him to Gitmo.
 
2013-04-20 03:02:49 PM

The_Sponge: usernameguy: Does every goddamn thread have to turn into a gun thread?


Because some people need to be called out for being inconsistent on their support of Constitutional rights.


And some people need to make every subject about Guns, and then to continue to lie about every f*ing aspect of it.

Enjoy your day, you miserable bitter paranoid bastard.
 
2013-04-20 03:03:46 PM
Circumventing the constitution and due process fill me with more terror than any bomb.

Graham, King, McCain, and Ayotte are all on board with this traitorous, terrorist idea, and all four should be sent to Guantanamo.
 
2013-04-20 03:04:41 PM

simplicimus: Drones strikes against american citizens is counter-productive. It's  hard to get intel from dead people.


I think the whole point of drone strikes is that the administration has given up hope of capturing these guys alive, and they're more of a threat alive than dead.  Doesn't mean I agree, but I can see the rationale.
 
2013-04-20 03:04:44 PM
ENEMY COMBATANT (per wiki)

Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2] Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).[3]

In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.

In the United States on March 13, 2009, the Obama administration announced its abandonment of the Bush administration's use of the term "enemy combatant".

END QUOTE

Oh really?

Time will tell.
 
2013-04-20 03:05:38 PM

The_Sponge: vpb: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: The_Sponge: t's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.

Actually, I do. I just focus on the well-regulated part that you want to ignore.


1) Go back and see the definition of "well-regulated" at the time.

The imaginary one that gun nut believe in or the real one that means the same thing today?


Keep f*cking that chicken.


Tell you what. When we have a powerful senator seriously suggesting that we get rid of every one of the 300 million odd guns that exist in the US today, you'll have a point.

Until then, get your threadjacking gun douchiness out of here.
 
2013-04-20 03:05:43 PM

BizarreMan: If it was the brother who died we were talking about I "might" consider enemy combatant because he only had a green card, no citizenship.  But the one they got got his citizenship  last September 11.  Even if he was plotting the attacks back then, he still gets his rights.


AFAIK, both were naturalized citizens. But that's irrelevant because the Constitution protects the rights of all persons, not just citizens.

We don't have two different sets of laws that depend on a person's status.
 
2013-04-20 03:06:21 PM

danvon: The best part is people who never even realized that there was a very narrow exception to the Miranda obligation are now strongly advocating that it definitely applies in this situation.



There's a lot of people completely against Miranda rights (or any rights) for those who are arrested, but the politicians were silent because they thought it was an absolute guaranteed right. With this exemption, they think they have an opportunity to extend the time and conditions so that practically everyone is exempt.

Shot an American citizen? That's an act of war, no Miranda rights for you.
Crashed into a guardrail? You destroyed government property, that makes you an enemy combatant.
Skipped school? You disobeyed a government official, and that's treason.
 
2013-04-20 03:06:42 PM

danvon: The best part is people who never even realized that there was a very narrow exception to the Miranda obligation are now strongly advocating that it definitely applies in this situation.


While i don't doubt the police have the right to use the exemption in this case - it surely isn't wise to use, if it gives the defence lawyers a technicality they can use later in court to try to get their client off the hook.

Sure, if the Feds reckon there are another two crazy dudes out there, go for it. But they don't seem to be hinting at that at all, in public anyway.
 
2013-04-20 03:06:46 PM

BizarreMan: Even if he was plotting the attacks back then, he still gets his rights.


From what I understand, in order to be considered and "enemy combatant" (which the law calls an unprivileged enemy belligerent) you have to be an alien. (See 10 USC 948b and c)

In order to have a citizen tried as an enemy combatant, it strongly appears that you have to remove citizenship first. For a naturalized citizen, that can be done, in this situation, under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451.

It does not looks, at the current time, that the facts fit into the statutory requirements to remove citizenship.
 
2013-04-20 03:07:18 PM
He came to the US when he was a child - in this case 9-years-old - grew up, and became a naturalized citizen. That's the story of countless U.S. born citiizens' grandparents or parents.

He has rights, no matter the crime; he was picked up in Watertown, Mass., not a foxhole in Iraq; "enemy combatant" my ass.

The minute we start saying "Except now..." is when this country is dead.

/ So go fark yourself, Lindsey.
// Real 'Muricans take the high road
 
2013-04-20 03:07:27 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: He's just saying what everyone in Government Republican senator is thinking.


Just so we all understand what's really going on at the top levels of government. They ALL want you to be obedient sheeple.
 
2013-04-20 03:08:19 PM
So now Senator Graham is in favor of using Federal power to crush an internal enemy?  That's a big switch.

"We don't do Lincoln Day Dinners in South Carolina. It's nothing personal, but it takes a while to get over things."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Day
 
2013-04-20 03:08:25 PM

BizarreMan: If it was the brother who died we were talking about I "might" consider enemy combatant because he only had a green card, no citizenship.  But the one they got got his citizenship  last September 11.  Even if he was plotting the attacks back then, he still gets his rights.


If the only real difference between the brothers is citizenship, then you're playing right into Graham's and Gohmert's hands by doing that.  We'd try him, we'd convict him, and we'd give him the choice of spending the rest of his life in prison, or a free trip to Kyrgyzstan and a warning that he'll be shot on sight if he ever tries to come back.
 
2013-04-20 03:09:03 PM

El Pachuco: AFAIK, both were naturalized citizens. But that's irrelevant because the Constitution protects the rights of all persons, not just citizens.


per wikipedia and the press.  The older one had a hold up on his citizenship because of a domestic violence charge.
 
2013-04-20 03:09:18 PM
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
 
2013-04-20 03:09:53 PM
Look boys they're books deals and movie rights to come out of this tragedy.
 Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Now lets get those billable hours rolling.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-20 03:10:27 PM
Wish the Democrats/Obama had the balls to stand up and call out people like Graham for being the unAmerican  shiat that they are.
 
2013-04-20 03:12:29 PM

NewportBarGuy: The 48 hours thing? Sounds reasonable. After that, read him his rights, give him a lawyer and stand him before a judge and jury.

While we're at it, let's do that to everyone in GITMO.


fark the 48 hours thing. Miranda is the law of the land dammit and should be upheld and used without exception. the SCOTUS ruling didn't have the 48 hours and Holder has no legal right to extend it. we have let first Bush and now Obama take away rights in the name of terror for too long. calling someone a "terrorist" isn't a get out of jail free card for LEOs. remember it's just been in the last week or so the decision came out about the misuse of torture. do we really want to be known as a lawless society and country? does anyone think this will help our standing?
 
2013-04-20 03:14:01 PM

the ha ha guy: There's a lot of people completely against Miranda rights (or any rights) for those who are arrested,


This shiats always amazed me, because it's almost always based on "Well, anyone that's arrested is criminal scum. I'm utterly innocent and law abiding, so it'll never happen to me..."
 
2013-04-20 03:14:11 PM
Oh, give me break you farkers. This a-hole should be a$$ raped in prison by the biggest black guy in the joint. Then he should have to toss salads every half hour in between each a$$ raping. And who would lose sleep over this? Not me.

When our enemies catch us they cut our heads off in front of cameras.
 
2013-04-20 03:14:15 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: The 48 hours thing? Sounds reasonable. After that, read him his rights, give him a lawyer and stand him before a judge and jury.

While we're at it, let's do that to everyone in GITMO.


It's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.

Wow. This thread went full retard in about 2 dozen posts. Good job.


I wonder if he was paid for it. Excellent value for money if that was the case.
 
2013-04-20 03:14:48 PM
Justice is just welfare for the guilty.
 
2013-04-20 03:14:51 PM

KittyGlitterSparkles: If a person is a U.S. citizen and their crimes are committed on U.S. soil against the U.S. then you should be treated like every other citizen. It's called the farking Bill of RIGHTS.


This x1000.

Frankly, I don't even care if they're a US citizen or not -- if someone commits a crime in the US, they should be treated like everyone else. It's one thing if you're fighting on some foreign battlefield (and something else entirely if you're part of an organized army, wearing uniforms, etc.), but if you commit a crime in the US, it should be treated like a  crime and not something where we violate the basic principles of our country.
 
2013-04-20 03:15:45 PM

KittyGlitterSparkles: How do I get on the NRA's or Obama administration's payroll for posting about gun control? I could use some extra cash and will argue either way.

About TFA. If a person is a U.S. citizen and their crimes are committed on U.S. soil against the U.S. then you should be treated like every other citizen. It's called the farking Bill of RIGHTS.


Being a US Citizen isn't an automatic path to the criminal judicial system.  See the story of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt .  Graham isn't calling for him to be treated as an enemy combatant (contrary to failmitter's claim) but urging the President to consider whether or not he should be, given the facts and circumstances.
 
2013-04-20 03:19:09 PM

Cataholic: Graham isn't calling for him to be treated as an enemy combatant (contrary to failmitter's claim) but urging the President to consider whether or not he should be, given the facts and circumstances.


King, McCain, Graham, Ayotte want enemy combatant status for Boston suspect:

"The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status," they said. "We do not want this suspect to remain silent."
 
2013-04-20 03:19:33 PM

opiumpoopy: While i don't doubt the police have the right to use the exemption in this case - it surely isn't wise to use, if it gives the defence lawyers a technicality they can use later in court to try to get their client off the hook.


If they question him without Miranda, and the court finds a Miranda violation, that wouldn't get him off the hook.  It would just mean that his statements could not be used against him.  They could still prove him guilty with other evidence.
 
2013-04-20 03:20:28 PM

darkedgefan: Oh, give me break you farkers. This a-hole should be a$$ raped in prison by the biggest black guy in the joint. Then he should have to toss salads every half hour in between each a$$ raping. And who would lose sleep over this? Not me.

When our enemies catch us they cut our heads off in front of cameras.


The point of it is so we aren't on the same farking level as bastards who cut off heads for fun. Would I mind if this dude has an unpleasant prison experience? No considering him and his asshole brother helped kill and maim people. Do I want him to get to that prison in the most legal way possible so his conviction can't be overturned? fark yes I do.
 
2013-04-20 03:22:59 PM

Cataholic: Graham isn't calling for him to be treated as an enemy combatant (contrary to failmitter's claim) but urging the President to consider whether or not he should be, given the facts and circumstances.


Yes, and I'm not saying that Graham is a fascist chucklefark, I say we should consider that he is a fascist chucklefark.

Though to be fair, he might not be. He's just running scared of the fascist chucklefarks looking to primary him in two years.
 
2013-04-20 03:27:55 PM

Kittypie070: Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.


I'm On Mobile, Hence The Weird Caps. I'm Replying Because I Can't Click "Smart"
 
2013-04-20 03:28:02 PM
What a coward.
 
2013-04-20 03:28:25 PM

SkinnyHead: They should certainly use the public safety exception to question him without Miranda to find out about his co-conspirators.


I'm agreeing with SkinnyHead and it feels weird.

That being said, the guy's lived in the United States for years.  What are the odds he isn't already aware of Miranda rights through pop culture exposure?  I mean, in any given 24-hour period there are 30 episodes of Law & Order aired on cable TV.
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report