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 04:43:47 PM
Just another stupid cracker.
 
2013-04-20 04:44:10 PM

Virulency: GoldSpider: Virulency: If he doesnt know he might not shutup

It's not a matter of whether or not he knows his rights.  I don't think he's going to be cooperative in any circumstances.

No one will know until he gets a chance to talk. For one he gave up rather than shooting himself


I thought he was passed out in the boat when they threw flashbangs in there with him.
 
2013-04-20 04:45:37 PM

thamike: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 530x314]

Does it apply to walking ventriloquist dummies wearing stolen skin, who are unable to sit for a photo without regressing into unbridled whimsy?


He puts me in mind of Liberace. I think it's the cheeks or maybe that he looks like he's had so much facial surgery that he's got an uncanny valley thing going on.
 
2013-04-20 04:46:38 PM
Saw it coming. Not just the Bush administration's use of it, but the Obama administration's attempt to leverage it - remember, Graham isn't the first person in the Obama administration to ask that we allow American citizens to be held as enemy combatants, or arrested without due process.

Sure, Graham's a scumbag, but he's not the only one in office suggesting it, and keep in mind that these asshats are asking Obama to do so in all seriousness because he's considered similar action in the past.

You don't like it? Don't whine about just Graham - whine about the fact that our government considers what is clearly an unconstitutional act as an option.
 
2013-04-20 04:46:48 PM

thamike: Virulency: GoldSpider: Virulency: If he doesnt know he might not shutup

It's not a matter of whether or not he knows his rights.  I don't think he's going to be cooperative in any circumstances.

No one will know until he gets a chance to talk. For one he gave up rather than shooting himself

I thought he was passed out in the boat when they threw flashbangs in there with him.


Dunno but he shot at them so he knew it was over
 
2013-04-20 04:47:42 PM

thamike: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 530x314]

Does it apply to walking ventriloquist dummies wearing stolen skin, who are unable to sit for a photo without regressing into unbridled whimsy?


The horrible part is that, if he'd just let his hair grow a bit, he'd make a lovely SG1 cosplayer.
 
2013-04-20 04:48:14 PM

Virulency: thamike: Virulency: GoldSpider: Virulency: If he doesnt know he might not shutup

It's not a matter of whether or not he knows his rights.  I don't think he's going to be cooperative in any circumstances.

No one will know until he gets a chance to talk. For one he gave up rather than shooting himself

I thought he was passed out in the boat when they threw flashbangs in there with him.

Dunno but he shot at them so he knew it was over


So he didn't give up.  They just shot him...impersonally.
 
2013-04-20 04:49:11 PM
If Obama had used a drone on this suspect, I suspect that Mr. Graham would be calling for an impeachment for using drones on an American citizen.

/The only bits of the Constitution the GOP likes are the 2nd amendment and the parts they make up.
 
2013-04-20 04:50:00 PM

Kittypie070: Amos Quito: Satanic_Hamster: Wish the Democrats/Obama had the balls to stand up and call out people like Graham for being the unAmerican  shiat that they are.


Maybe they agree with Graham, but haven't the balls to say so?

*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*flail*
*SMACK*

drat malaria spreading little pest



❤ ❤  Aw, you missed me! ❤ ❤
 
2013-04-20 04:52:00 PM
Lindsey Graham doesn't want the 5th Amendment to apply to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev now that he's in custody.

However, Graham is adamant that, if Tsarnaev had escaped yesterday, he should have been able to buy firearms without a background check.
 
2013-04-20 04:54:32 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Lindsey Graham doesn't want the 5th Amendment to apply to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev now that he's in custody.

However, Graham is adamant that, if Tsarnaev had escaped yesterday, he should have been able to buy firearms without a background check.


It's the American Way Honor System!
 
2013-04-20 04:55:11 PM

whidbey: Amos Quito: Tweedle (D) vs Tweedle (R).

Just shut up and pay your taxes if you're not going to keep helping Republicans get elected. For once in your life. For once in MY life.



(R)'s and (D)'s..

You see a difference?

I see two sets of fishermen - each armed with reels, lines, hooks and nets.

Both want to snag, snare and gut.

The only difference I see is the bait.
 
2013-04-20 04:55:40 PM

FormlessOne: Graham isn't the first person in the Obama administration to ask that we allow American citizens to be held as enemy combatants, or arrested without due process.


Who did who in the what now?
 
2013-04-20 04:55:40 PM
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*

*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
*SMACK*
 
2013-04-20 04:57:47 PM
For people that screech about how everything Obama does is somehow unconstitutional (of course this takes an intentional misinterpretation of what the document actually says in order to make it conform to their warped worldview), you'd think these people wouldn't be so quick to want to ignore it themselves.
 
2013-04-20 04:58:12 PM

Amos Quito: Both want to snag, snare and gut.

The only difference I see is the bait.


If you ever voted for Ron Paul I'm going to laugh and laugh.
 
2013-04-20 04:59:17 PM

Amos Quito: You see a difference?


Of course there's a difference between the Dems and the Republicans.

What you don't like about them is that both are too liberal for you. And that whole "social safety net" thing. Tsk tsk. Stealing your hard earned money to give to lazy bums who won't work. The NERVE of those people.
 
2013-04-20 05:02:44 PM

FormlessOne: Graham isn't the first person in the Obama administration


quizzicaldog.jpg
 
2013-04-20 05:06:47 PM

A Terrible Human: Amos Quito: Both want to snag, snare and gut.

The only difference I see is the bait.

If you ever voted for Ron Paul I'm going to laugh and laugh.


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-20 05:07:53 PM
Ok, Lindsay Graham is a farking douchebag, BUT:

Interrogating someone without Mirandizing them first is not a violation of rights, and this goes for citizens or non-citizens. Police are free to interrogate you all they want without Mirandizing you, and that does not violate a single civil/constitutional right.

The violation happens when what you have said to them is used against you in court. So as long as they are not planning on using anything this guy says against him in court, then nobody is violating any or his rights.

This is not a new development. It's been this way since Miranda v. Arizona.
 
2013-04-20 05:08:32 PM

Nobodyn0se: Ok, Lindsay Graham is a farking douchebag, BUT:

Interrogating someone without Mirandizing them first is not a violation of rights, and this goes for citizens or non-citizens. Police are free to interrogate you all they want without Mirandizing you, and that does not violate a single civil/constitutional right.

The violation happens when what you have said to them is used against you in court. So as long as they are not planning on using anything this guy says against him in court, then nobody is violating any or his rights.

This is not a new development. It's been this way since Miranda v. Arizona.


or = of
 
2013-04-20 05:16:05 PM
upload.wikimedia.org "
 
2013-04-20 05:19:27 PM
So much for the "party of strict constitutionalists."

Look, Dzhokhar Tzaernaev is a piece of shiat, but are we really going to abandon our principles out of fear and terror?  Give this turdbucket his trial, everyone know's he's guilty, especially after carjacking, robbing a convenience store, getting into a fire fight, killing a cop and lobbing grenades.  Are we going to write our laws and then ignore them when they become "inconvenient?"

Detainment and/or conviction without trial was wrong when Bush did it, and is wrong now under Obama.  Give this shiatbag his trial and then we can throw him in jail knowing we did it the right way.
 
2013-04-20 05:19:44 PM

Slaves2Darkness: TerminalEchoes: I hate the fact that this douche is most likely going to be given his Constitutional rights. BUT! In order for the Constitution to remain intact, you have to take the good with the bad. He's an American citizen and thus he deserves American due process. The moment you start making exceptions (like we already do), the Constitution starts to unravel.

Weird, I love the fact that he was caught and now gets to face due process of the law. It means the system is still working and the gravest threat to our nation, the Republicans, have not won. It amazes me that people whine their is no justice in the court systems, but won't serve and don't want the courts to process high profile criminals. That Republicans both complain government does not work and at the same time do their utmost to destroy the government and prevent it from working.

The reality is big government works when allowed to and not deliberately sabotaged. Sixty to seventy percent top marginal tax rate does balance the budget with out significantly slowing GDP growth, and that scares the shiat out of Republicans. They spew so many lies and so much disinformation that those two messages and ideas get drowned out.


Oh I agree with you, absolutely. But I have to confess that my first reaction was "put him in the stocks and let the people of Boston slowly murder him over the course of weeks." I even have a few liberal friends who shared that sentiment. But logically, I'm glad he's getting his due process and I'm glad he was taken alive.
 
2013-04-20 05:20:53 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.


I think Lindsay Graham would very much like that scenario. Not much of a punishment for Lindsay if he's to enjoy that kind of thing. Know what I mean?
 
2013-04-20 05:20:58 PM

Nobodyn0se: Police are free to interrogate you all they want without Mirandizing you, and that does not violate a single civil/constitutional right.


I'm going to disagree with that because the 5th Am. says this: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."   That's the right being violated, excluding any evidence derived from violating that right is the sanction against the state.
 
2013-04-20 05:22:39 PM
Lindsey Graham sounds like a girl's name
 
2013-04-20 05:22:55 PM

heinekenftw: So much for the "party of strict constitutionalists."

Look, Dzhokhar Tzaernaev is a piece of shiat, but are we really going to abandon our principles out of fear and terror?


Absolutely!!!!!!

Because that's what Godly Real AmericansTM must do!
The constitution was inspired by King Jesus, remember?

*twitch*
 
2013-04-20 05:23:33 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: Police are free to interrogate you all they want without Mirandizing you, and that does not violate a single civil/constitutional right.

I'm going to disagree with that because the 5th Am. says this: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."   That's the right being violated, excluding any evidence derived from violating that right is the sanction against the state.


Yes, but the 5th Amendment specifically protects your rights AT TRIAL. As long as the police are not planning on using anything this guy says against him at trial, it's not a violation of his rights. They can interrogate him all they like without Mirandizing him, and this doesn't violate any of his rights. It's the using it at trial part that violates his rights.
 
2013-04-20 05:25:14 PM

Nobodyn0se: As long as the police are not planning on using anything this guy says against him at trial, it's not a violation of his rights.


Pretty sure you don't get those kind of guarantees here. I think you've been away too long. ;)
 
2013-04-20 05:25:16 PM
Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm
 
2013-04-20 05:26:28 PM

Nobodyn0se: Yes, but the 5th Amendment specifically protects your rights AT TRIAL. As long as the police are not planning on using anything this guy says against him at trial, it's not a violation of his rights. They can interrogate him all they like without Mirandizing him, and this doesn't violate any of his rights. It's the using it at trial part that violates his rights.


You just said the same thing you said the first time. It extends beyond just your rights at a trial. Look at in the context of the 4th amendment. What you are saying is comparable to saying police can search your home without a warrant and your rights aren't violated because they won't be able to use what they found in the home against you in a trial.
 
2013-04-20 05:27:56 PM

Nobodyn0se: Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm


That's the exclusionary rule applying because a right has been violated.
 
2013-04-20 05:28:18 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: Yes, but the 5th Amendment specifically protects your rights AT TRIAL. As long as the police are not planning on using anything this guy says against him at trial, it's not a violation of his rights. They can interrogate him all they like without Mirandizing him, and this doesn't violate any of his rights. It's the using it at trial part that violates his rights.

You just said the same thing you said the first time. It extends beyond just your rights at a trial. Look at in the context of the 4th amendment. What you are saying is comparable to saying police can search your home without a warrant and your rights aren't violated because they won't be able to use what they found in the home against you in a trial.


Yes, that's exactly how that works. Did you not know that?
 
2013-04-20 05:29:49 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm

That's the exclusionary rule applying because a right has been violated.


That's also a very clear statement that Miranda rights don't have to be read until and unless you want to use what the person has to say at trial.
 
2013-04-20 05:30:22 PM
There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?
 
2013-04-20 05:31:01 PM

Skeptos: There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?


Yes.
 
2013-04-20 05:31:36 PM

Nobodyn0se: Yes, that's exactly how that works. Did you not know that?


Yes, I am very aware of that.

Nobodyn0se: That's also a very clear statement that Miranda rights don't have to be read until and unless you want to use what the person has to say at trial.


It says they don't have to be read until a person is under custodial interrogation. The sanction is that the state cannot use that information because a right has been violated.
 
2013-04-20 05:34:22 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.


I believe in second amendment rights, it's just that you and the rest of the mentally ill should have guns.
 
2013-04-20 05:34:48 PM

danvon: Yes, I am very aware of that.


Then why are you arguing with me? Those rights only protect you at trial.

danvon: It says they don't have to be read until a person is under custodial interrogation.


It says they don't have to be read at all. They only have to be read under custodial interrogation if you want to use what he says against him in court.

danvon: The sanction is that the state cannot use that information because a right has been violated.


Yes, exactly.
 
2013-04-20 05:34:48 PM

KittyGlitterSparkles: 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.


Don't fall into this trap. Our constitutional protections are for EVERYONE, not just citizens. Once you agree that those rights are limited to citizens, you've already gone over to the dark side.
 
2013-04-20 05:35:27 PM

Skeptos: There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?


Correct.
 
2013-04-20 05:35:59 PM

Nobodyn0se: That's also a very clear statement that Miranda rights don't have to be read until and unless you want to use what the person has to say at trial.


Here is some United States Supreme Court language  that supports my position.

As we explained, we have allowed the Fifth Amendment ... in order to safeguard the core constitutional right defined by the Self-Incrimination Clause-the right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself.3 We have likewise established the Miranda exclusionary rule as a prophylactic measure to prevent violations of the right protected by the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause-the admission into evidence in a criminal case of confessions obtained through coercive custodial questioning.
 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 772, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 2003-04, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 (2003)
 
2013-04-20 05:36:06 PM

Skeptos: There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?


Not if they go Homeland Security on his ass.
 
2013-04-20 05:37:06 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: That's also a very clear statement that Miranda rights don't have to be read until and unless you want to use what the person has to say at trial.

Here is some United States Supreme Court language  that supports my position.

As we explained, we have allowed the Fifth Amendment ... in order to safeguard the core constitutional right defined by the Self-Incrimination Clause-the right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself.3 We have likewise established the Miranda exclusionary rule as a prophylactic measure to prevent violations of the right protected by the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause-the admission into evidence in a criminal case of confessions obtained through coercive custodial questioning.
 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 772, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 2003-04, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 (2003)


No, it supports my position. That's saying you can't use the evidence you've gathered against someone in court. Not that you can't gather it.
 
2013-04-20 05:38:58 PM
As heinous as any crime maybe, we don't just waive rights afforded to citizens of our own country, you douche.
 
2013-04-20 05:39:51 PM

Nobodyn0se: Then why are you arguing with me? Those rights only protect you at trial


No, it is not just at trial. The results may only show at a trial but it is a prohibition of police conduct because it is a right.

Nobodyn0se: It says they don't have to be read at all. They only have to be read under custodial interrogation if you want to use what he says against him in court.


That  is not true. Again, that  is the exclusionary rule applying because a right was violated. It is not the case that a right was not violated.

It may seem like a distinction without a difference but there is a very important difference between what I am saying and what you are saying.
 
2013-04-20 05:40:18 PM
Danvon, once again, straight from the mouth of the government itself:


Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm

Police can arrest or detain people as much as they like without Mirandizing them. The only caveat is that they cannot admit anything the person says post detention but pre Miranda rights against them in a trial.
 
2013-04-20 05:42:58 PM

Nobodyn0se: No, it supports my position. That's saying you can't use the evidence you've gathered against someone in court. Not that you can't gather it.


Your position is that there is no right to and the right is to keep those statements out of a trial. That is not the right.  That is the sanction. The case clearly says this: right protected by the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause. That is the right. The right is not the ability to keep it out of trial. That may be the end result but that is not the right guaranteed by the Constitution. The exclusionary rule is a wholly judge created sanction. It is not a right.
 
2013-04-20 05:42:58 PM

danvon: Nobodyn0se: Yes, but the 5th Amendment specifically protects your rights AT TRIAL. As long as the police are not planning on using anything this guy says against him at trial, it's not a violation of his rights. They can interrogate him all they like without Mirandizing him, and this doesn't violate any of his rights. It's the using it at trial part that violates his rights.

You just said the same thing you said the first time. It extends beyond just your rights at a trial. Look at in the context of the 4th amendment. What you are saying is comparable to saying police can search your home without a warrant and your rights aren't violated because they won't be able to use what they found in the home against you in a trial.



That's correct. If the police search your home without a warrant and find an acre of weed and an arsenal of automatic weapons, you will walk scot free because none of what they found can be used at trial. That's the only reason police get a warrant first. Plus, you don't have to let the cops in without a warrant in the first place.

As for Miranda rights, the cops can ask whatever they want before reading someone their rights, but that person does not have to answer. Because you always have your Miranda rights and your 5th amendment rights, even before the cops read them to you. The only thing reading your rights does is make any statements you make admissible in court.

This guy in Boston has his Miranda rights already, even though people are fuming because the cops weren't yelling "You have the right to remain silent" as they were dragging his semi-concious body onto the gurney. This isn't a goddamn episode of The Shield.
 
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