Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

8957 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2013 at 2:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-20 08:44:56 AM  
lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.
 
2013-04-20 09:12:31 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-20 09:15:22 AM  

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.


i understand the miranda exemption. but he MUST be tried as any american citizen would be tried, with ALL the rights due to him under the constitution.

lindsay graham wants to turn this country into a police state. he is a real piece of shiat.
 
2013-04-20 09:16:55 AM  
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?
 
2013-04-20 09:21:24 AM  

FlashHarry: lindsay graham wants to turn this country into a police state. he is a real piece of shiat.


Yes he is. He's really the one who formed the opposition to closing GITMO. He's a man-child who wants to lock away all the baddies in a deep dark corner. He would have fit in well in a Mubarak style government.

Lady Justice is a pretty important part of our country and I wish that asshole would stop ignoring her and asking her to get him a beer and make him a sammich.
 
2013-04-20 09:32:03 AM  
He's just saying what every Republican senator is thinking.
 
2013-04-20 09:40:38 AM  

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


why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?
 
2013-04-20 10:06:01 AM  
Graham and his ilk can do FAR more damage to America than any terrorist.
 
2013-04-20 10:32:36 AM  
In fairness, Lindsey Graham is a ginormous douche, and that is an important thing to consider when taking in any of his statements.
 
2013-04-20 11:37:38 AM  
Just say it, Lindsey...you want him to be tortured.
 
2013-04-20 11:46:00 AM  
Damn you inconvenient law!!!

We should be able to ignore the constituiton when we skeered.
 
2013-04-20 11:47:12 AM  
Graham also suggested that the Obama administration should use a drone to track any suspects in the case


I thought drones were bad
 
2013-04-20 11:56:23 AM  

hubiestubert: In fairness, Lindsey Graham is a ginormous douche, and that is an important thing to consider when taking in any of his statements.


He's gotta be true to who he is.
 
2013-04-20 12:02:13 PM  
"If the #Boston suspect has ties to overseas terror organizations he could be treasure trove of information."


The US had 700+ enemy combatants in custody at Gitmo alone, and it took ten years to find OBL. What possible information about international terrorist organizations could they hope to gain from a 19 year old who appears to have been only recently converted?

I'm sure they'll get plenty of good information like if there are any accomplices, where they got the guns and explosives, etc, but the ties to a larger organization (if any) most likely died with his brother.
 
2013-04-20 12:04:27 PM  
Drones strikes against american citizens is counter-productive. It's  hard to get intel from dead people.
 
2013-04-20 12:11:06 PM  

FlashHarry: lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.

 
2013-04-20 12:13:53 PM  
Don't you think he looks tired?
 
2013-04-20 12:18:47 PM  

kxs401: Graham and his ilk can do

have done FAR more damage to America than any terrorist.

FTFY
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-20 12:19:13 PM  
"It sure would be nice to have a drone up there."

Why?  What sort of special powers is a drone supposed to have?  What can it do that a helicopter can't?


I think he is just talking tough for the deliverance demographic.
 
2013-04-20 12:22:04 PM  
It seems like there was a time when Lindsey was somewhat reasonable. Or maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention
 
2013-04-20 12:29:53 PM  

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

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?


It's all about fear. It might not be a conscious fear, but it's in there, driving him to propose irrational actions - and it's  exactly what terrorists want us to do.
 
2013-04-20 12:53:39 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.



It's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.
 
2013-04-20 12:59:44 PM  
What do you expect from a guy who advocates, and voted for, indefinite detention of American Citizens:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

"1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."
 
2013-04-20 01:01:35 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.


You are just physically incapable of imagining people who don't give a shiat about guns. It's quite something.
 
2013-04-20 01:02:59 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 01:07:45 PM  
They should certainly use the public safety exception to question him without Miranda to find out about his co-conspirators.
 
2013-04-20 01:13:06 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.

You are just physically incapable of imagining people who don't give a shiat about guns. It's quite something.



Yeah....and you believe it's a more important right that a guy has the right to f*ck his sister.....so that's really something.
 
2013-04-20 01:14:21 PM  
Does every goddamn thread have to turn into a gun thread?
 
2013-04-20 01:14:41 PM  

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.

2) By all means, keep being a borderline hypocrite because you used to own an "assault weapon" as a civilian....talk about "I had mine, do f*ck you."
 
2013-04-20 01:15:29 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 01:16:34 PM  

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.



When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-20 01:16:40 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-20 01:19:25 PM  

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.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-20 01:21:06 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.


What about people who don't comprehend them?
 
2013-04-20 01:22:46 PM  

vpb: 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.

What about people who don't comprehend them?



Like people who think that "well-regulated" means that it is okay to ban 30 round mags and "assault weapons"?
 
2013-04-20 01:25:54 PM  
Good thing my name isn't that funny then.
 
2013-04-20 01:28:36 PM  

SilentStrider: Good thing my name isn't that funny then.



What if my first name is normal, but my last name is funny?
 
2013-04-20 01:34:49 PM  

spongeboob: Graham also suggested that the Obama administration should use a drone to track any suspects in the case


I thought drones were bad


They are, but the Republicans are a little fluid on it.  Did Obama use them? Yes, they're bad.  Did Obama not use them? They're not so bad and actually help law enforcement.

While I understand people can say "in some cases, some things aren't so bad..." the Republicans sole criteria is whether or not Obama used them.  They get bonus excitement points if Obama uses a drone and something goes wrong. Then they are really, really super extra bad.
 
2013-04-20 01:37:22 PM  

The_Sponge: Like people who think that "well-regulated" means that it is okay to ban 30 round mags and "assault weapons"?


You mean people interpret things differently? My gawd, Gomer! Did you just figure this out?

Carry on. You're doing a great job.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-20 01:38:24 PM  
The_Sponge:
Keep f*cking that chicken.

Nice try hillbilly, but you should try to come up with something original.
 
2013-04-20 01:38:49 PM  

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


Yes yes, we know. If someone doesn't agree with your particular modern idiosyncratic interpretation of the Second Amendment, they must not have any regard for rights and ron paul and yadda yadda yadda. But at least the Obama Administration is not interested in resurrecting this idea EC idea for American citizens or lawful residents, and isn't interested in droning all over the countryside. I think we can all be grateful for that.
 
2013-04-20 01:39:57 PM  

vpb: The_Sponge:
Keep f*cking that chicken.

Nice try hillbilly, but you should try to come up with something original.



Original like what?  Calling a gun owner a "hillbilly"?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-20 01:40:59 PM  
The_Sponge:

Like people who think that "well-regulated" means that it is okay to ban 30 round mags and "assault weapons"?

Or people who don't comprehend that that's exactly what it means?
 
2013-04-20 01:46:31 PM  

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

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?


Why are we blaming this only on Republicans when it seems the Obama administration is leading the charge, both with this guy specifically and and in the past as far as attempts to widen the public safety exemption?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4244802/boston-bombing-miranda-war ni ng-put-on-hold-public-safety-exception
 
2013-04-20 01:48:12 PM  
Sorry, but IIRC isn't this guy a naturalized citizen?  Yae cannae deu thet, keptin!
 
2013-04-20 01:51:03 PM  

HighlanderRPI: What do you expect from a guy who advocates, and voted for, indefinite detention of American Citizens:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

"1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."


IIRC, practically the whole damned Congress voted for it (at least when the amendment was brought up).  Senate was like 99-1, with only RAND PAUL voting against it.
 
2013-04-20 01:54:25 PM  

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

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?

Why are we blaming this only on Republicans when it seems the Obama administration is leading the charge, both with this guy specifically and and in the past as far as attempts to widen the public safety exemption?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4244802/boston-bombing-miranda-war ni ng-put-on-hold-public-safety-exception


You do realize that's totally different than declaring the guy an enemy combatant, right?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-20 01:56:22 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-20 02:04:14 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 02:11:28 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Ranger Rover: FlashHarry: Sock Ruh Tease: He's just saying what every Republican senator is thinking.

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?

Why are we blaming this only on Republicans when it seems the Obama administration is leading the charge, both with this guy specifically and and in the past as far as attempts to widen the public safety exemption?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4244802/boston-bombing-miranda-war ni ng-put-on-hold-public-safety-exception

You do realize that's totally different than declaring the guy an enemy combatant, right?


Yeah, that's a good point, I shouldn't be conflating the two. But I do think they at least go together, inasmuch as Graham has also expressed support for not Mirandizing him, and that enemy combatant status is a way around Mirandizing like the public safety expression. But, point conceded.

It seems like this has turned into a gun thread.
 
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.
 
2013-04-20 03:30:54 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?


Yes well it is important to register voters and force them to submit to background checks to vote, but we can't infringe on their right to shoot children.
 
2013-04-20 03:31:16 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-20 03:33:49 PM  

opiumpoopy: 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.


I'm not sure the criminal case against him is going to depend on any statements he makes after being taken into custody.
 
2013-04-20 03:35:14 PM  

A Terrible Human: 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.


THIS
 
2013-04-20 03:35:23 PM  
Don't make me start feeling sorry for the bombing suspect Lindsey, you subhuman piece of filth. He's an American citizen and should be treated as such, no matter how heinous the crime.
 
2013-04-20 03:35:32 PM  
Lindsey's bullshiat language makes me hate him more than his actual opinion. It's understandable that a lot of people want to string this guy up without due process. I don't agree, but I get it. And like it or not, there IS precedent.

But punkass Sen. Graham won't even own that viewpoint. He throws in a few "perhapses" and "considers" so he can scuttle out of it if anyone asks him to explain himself. So he espouses a primitive, anti-American sentiment, but not enough to actually back it if things get difficult.

You must be so proud, Republicans.
 
2013-04-20 03:36:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 03:37:13 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: 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?

Yes well it is important to register voters and force them to submit to background checks to vote, but we can't infringe on their right to shoot children.


You're a special kind if stupid, aren't you?
 
2013-04-20 03:38:27 PM  

LucklessWonder: A Terrible Human: 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.

THIS


I want to see him end up like McVeigh.
 
2013-04-20 03:38:35 PM  
fark you senator graham
 
2013-04-20 03:43:17 PM  
God, I love that Graham chick, I don't care that she says crazy shiat.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-20 03:44:21 PM  

FlashHarry: i understand the miranda exemption.


You do?
 
2013-04-20 03:45:27 PM  

SkinnyHead: 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.


This may be the first time in the history of Fark you were ever right about anything.
 
2013-04-20 03:45:56 PM  

hinten: God, I love that Graham chick, I don't care that she says crazy shiat.


*fapfapfap*
 
2013-04-20 03:46:12 PM  
"What may be done to one may be done to all." ---Richard Henry Dana

And don't you forget it, Senator. Next time they may come for you.
 
2013-04-20 03:46:55 PM  

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


They are and I don't think people have a problem with it
 
2013-04-20 03:47:59 PM  

spongeboob: Graham also suggested that the Obama administration should use a drone to track any suspects in the case


I thought drones were bad


It's an interesting poll, but I suspect that forecasting emotional responses to future acts of terrorism is subject to significant impact bias.
 
2013-04-20 03:49:34 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: It seems like there was a time when Lindsey was somewhat reasonable. Or maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention


He's the kind of guy where quoting snippets of him out of context makes him seem more reasonable instead of less reasonable.
 
2013-04-20 03:54:00 PM  

Virulency: They are and I don't think people have a problem with it


I'm not entirely certain how not notifying him of his rights is going to make him any more likely to be cooperative.
 
2013-04-20 03:54:51 PM  

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


Let some imaginary threat to the 2nd Amendment come up and suddenly every redneck I know is a staunch defender of the Constitution. Then you have something like this happen and the same people are willing to wipe their ass with it.
 
2013-04-20 03:55:50 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.


So what you're saying is that you hate our country for our freedoms and rule of law and admire our enemies for their barbarity and think we should strive to be more like them?
 
2013-04-20 03:56:00 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-20 03:57:12 PM  
Righties talk all about how government is evil and we can't trust them and all, but then the instant any kind of serious shiat goes down, they're the first to offer their rights up -- nay, demand their rights be taken from them -- in order to keep them safe.  Hypocrites and cowards, the whole lot.
 
2013-04-20 03:57:45 PM  

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


Unfortunately "his ilk" includes many, MANY "liberals".
 
2013-04-20 03:59:00 PM  
What is it about republicans and their facial features that are........not quite human?

angrywhitedude.comschydrogen.org

Decades from now, in a world where these criminals are finally removed form power, our grandchildren are going to look at holo-rods of these days and ask us "WTF WERE YOU THINKING, VOTING FOR THESE BASTARDS???!! I MEAN, JUST LOOK AT THEM! DIDN'T YOU GET ANY SORT OF CREEPY VIBES COMING OFF FROM THEM?"
 
2013-04-20 03:59:02 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Righties talk all about how government is evil and we can't trust them and all, but then the instant any kind of serious shiat goes down, they're the first to offer their rights up -- nay, demand their rights be taken from them -- in order to keep them safe.  Hypocrites and cowards, the whole lot.



Tweedle (D) vs Tweedle (R).

Enjoying the show?
 
2013-04-20 03:59:59 PM  

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

Unfortunately "his ilk" includes many, MANY "liberals".


NO liberals would vote for Graham.
 
2013-04-20 04:02:41 PM  
I think the frustration of being a self-loathing, closeted, gay Republican has finally made poor Lindsay crack...
 
2013-04-20 04:03:44 PM  

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

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?


Because, they covet the master-keys.
 
2013-04-20 04:05:29 PM  

GoldSpider: Virulency: They are and I don't think people have a problem with it

I'm not entirely certain how not notifying him of his rights is going to make him any more likely to be cooperative.


Either way they don't need his statements to convict at this point... Anything he talks and gives up is a bonus and yah if he's going to talk he's going to talk regardless if e was read some rights
 
2013-04-20 04:08:17 PM  

Virulency: Anything he talks and gives up is a bonus and yah if he's going to talk he's going to talk regardless if e was read some rights


That's kind of my point... so why not play this by the book?
 
2013-04-20 04:11:47 PM  
Not surprising that the Republicans are the ones calling for stripping an American citizen of his rights. After all, they were the ones who threw the Constitution out the window shoving the PATRIOT Act down Congress's throat a decade ago.

Oh but I thought both parties were the same.
 
2013-04-20 04:12:05 PM  

GoldSpider: Virulency: Anything he talks and gives up is a bonus and yah if he's going to talk he's going to talk regardless if e was read some rights

That's kind of my point... so why not play this by the book?


In some cases I imagine time is more important than getting a confession and the information is more valuable since they don't need his statements to convict him, But they could use it against accomplices. It's not like his rights to remain silent go away if he's not read rights
 
2013-04-20 04:15:07 PM  
Speaking of names, I had a cute girl-friend named Lindsey. I assume Mr. Graham is a taker and as weird as a three dollar bill?
 
2013-04-20 04:17:15 PM  

Delay: Speaking of names, I had a cute girl-friend named Lindsey. I assume Mr. Graham is a taker and as weird as a three dollar bill?


Apparently, bragging about how the US government should function like a police state isn't "weird."
 
2013-04-20 04:19:10 PM  

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
 
2013-04-20 04:21:28 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 04:21:41 PM  
Enemy combatant?  Of what?  Some nebulous thing called the Global war on terror.  He committed murder and, if convicted, will be punished accordingly.  he is a naturalized citizen so i guess they can strip him of his citizenship.  But then i guess he would go back to being a Russian citizen and would have to be accorded proper treatment as a foreign national.   He committed a crime and he can be dealt with by the courts.  No matter what Graham says we are not at war and the civilian courts can handle this crime.  We've heard quite a bit about the exception to Miranda but apparently the exception applies to a very stringent line of questioning and nothing seems to have been said about the accused self-invoking his Miranda rights.
 
2013-04-20 04:28:02 PM  

runwiz: Enemy combatant?  Of what?  Some nebulous thing called the Global war on terror.  He committed murder and, if convicted, will be punished accordingly.  he is a naturalized citizen so i guess they can strip him of his citizenship.  But then i guess he would go back to being a Russian citizen and would have to be accorded proper treatment as a foreign national.   He committed a crime and he can be dealt with by the courts.  No matter what Graham says we are not at war and the civilian courts can handle this crime.  We've heard quite a bit about the exception to Miranda but apparently the exception applies to a very stringent line of questioning and nothing seems to have been said about the accused self-invoking his Miranda rights.


I'm surprised the War on Drugs hasn't been used to classify pot smokers as enemy combatants at this point.
 
2013-04-20 04:29:42 PM  

Virulency: In some cases I imagine time is more important than getting a confession and the information is more valuable since they don't need his statements to convict him


I doubt that NOT reading him his rights is going to get us that information more quickly.
 
2013-04-20 04:30:12 PM  

TV's Vinnie: What is it about republicans and their facial features that are........not quite human?

[angrywhitedude.com image 319x365][schydrogen.org image 275x364]

Decades from now, in a world where these criminals are finally removed form power, our grandchildren are going to look at holo-rods of these days and ask us "WTF WERE YOU THINKING, VOTING FOR THESE BASTARDS???!! I MEAN, JUST LOOK AT THEM! DIDN'T YOU GET ANY SORT OF CREEPY VIBES COMING OFF FROM THEM?"


Portraying your enemies as less than human is the first step to genocide. In this case, I'll allow it. Republicans may as well be Reptiloids at this point, they are so farking evil.
 
2013-04-20 04:32:10 PM  

GoldSpider: Virulency: In some cases I imagine time is more important than getting a confession and the information is more valuable since they don't need his statements to convict him

I doubt that NOT reading him his rights is going to get us that information more quickly.


If he doesnt know he might not shutup
 
2013-04-20 04:33:36 PM  
If we ignore our laws we justify the bombings.
 
2013-04-20 04:34:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-20 04:34:47 PM  

Primum: Reptiloids


They don't call it the "R-Complex" for nothing.
 
2013-04-20 04:35:49 PM  

Delay: Speaking of names, I had a cute girl-friend named Lindsey. I assume Mr. Graham is a taker and as weird as a three dollar bill?



i251.photobucket.com

Hopes that he is kept out of this conversation.
 
2013-04-20 04:36:04 PM  

mrlewish: If we ignore our laws we justify the bombings.


I don't know about THAT, but it's certainly a small victory for anyone trying to take us down a peg.
 
2013-04-20 04:37:52 PM  

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.


Just get a big brotherly type in to talk to him and he'll give up all he knows.
 
2013-04-20 04:37:53 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Does it apply to walking ventriloquist dummies wearing stolen skin, who are unable to sit for a photo without regressing into unbridled whimsy?
 
2013-04-20 04:40:06 PM  

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
 
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.
 
2013-04-20 05:43:30 PM  

danvon: 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.


Ok man, you keep going with that. Good luck trying to use this reasoning in a court of law.
 
2013-04-20 05:44:49 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


I can't say I disagree.
 
2013-04-20 05:44:55 PM  

Nobodyn0se: 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.


Because they have violated a right. That is the sanction.
 
2013-04-20 05:45:54 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 he's designated "enemy combatant," which is what this sniveling little pussy Sen. Graham wants
 
2013-04-20 05:45:58 PM  

stoli n coke: 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.


But the violation of your rights doesn't occur when the police search your house without a warrant. The violation of your rights occurs when they try to use that evidence at trial.
 
2013-04-20 05:46:27 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Ok man, you keep going with that. Good luck trying to use this reasoning in a court of law.


I have. I used to be prosecutor.
 
2013-04-20 05:46:44 PM  

FormlessOne: 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.


You must be from one of those planets that would seriously elect a hairless weasel like Lindsey Graham.

\he's not a member of the frickin Obama administration, you toad
\\just suggesting that he is should get you pimp-slapped until your Daddy wets his pants
 
2013-04-20 05:46:57 PM  

danvon: Because they have violated a right. That is the sanction.


Yes, but the violation of your rights wasn't the "questioning you without a warrant" part. It was the "trying to use the results of that questioning at trial" part.

Ask any lawyer worth his salt.
 
2013-04-20 05:47:24 PM  

Nobodyn0se: But the violation of your rights doesn't occur when the police search your house without a warrant. The violation of your rights occurs when they try to use that evidence at trial.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. I can bring a 1983 suit against a  police officer even if my case never makes it to trial.  Violation of a constitutional right under color of law.
 
2013-04-20 05:48:56 PM  

Nobodyn0se: questioning you without a warrant


You can get questioned without a warrant anytime.

Nobodyn0se: trying to use the results of that questioning at trial" part.


That's the exclusionary rule. The sanction for violating a right.
 
2013-04-20 05:50:23 PM  

FlashHarry: lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.

out of society.


FTFY.
 
2013-04-20 05:50:53 PM  

stoli n coke: 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.


Well, until they ship him to Guantanamo, water-board him, and hold him for years without a trial, an attorney, or any means of contesting. Then you don't have to worry about what is and isn't admissible in a silly court.
 
2013-04-20 05:52:57 PM  

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


They already have (text of Public Law 107-56).
 
2013-04-20 05:53:40 PM  

KittyGlitterSparkles: DamnYankees: 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.

I can't say I disagree.


I guess I went over to the dark side years ago then. Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens? Not trolling.
 
2013-04-20 05:53:41 PM  

danvon: Nobodyn0se: questioning you without a warrant

You can get questioned without a warrant anytime.

Nobodyn0se: trying to use the results of that questioning at trial" part.

That's the exclusionary rule. The sanction for violating a right.


So if a man is arrested and never read his Miranda rights, then taken to trial (where absolutely nothing he has said while in police custody is used against him) and he is convicted and sent to prison, you're saying he can get that conviction overturned because his 5th Amendment rights have been violated?

I don't think so.
 
2013-04-20 05:59:28 PM  
Nobodyn0se--I understand you perfectly.  You are generally correct.

/thought you needed that.
 
2013-04-20 05:59:35 PM  

whidbey: 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.



img1.photographersdirect.com

How politicians might see you
 
2013-04-20 06:00:42 PM  

thamike: Nobodyn0se--I understand you perfectly.  You are generally correct.

/thought you needed that.


I did. Thank you.
 
2013-04-20 06:00:45 PM  

Nobodyn0se: So if a man is arrested and never read his Miranda rights, then taken to trial (where absolutely nothing he has said while in police custody is used against him) and he is convicted and sent to prison, you're saying he can get that conviction overturned because his 5th Amendment rights have been violated?


I'm saying no such thing. The right is against self-incrimination, Just like what the United States Supreme Court said. You appear to be blurring the lines between the right and the exclusionary rule. I can understand why as the violation of one definitely leads to the other but they are two distinct things.
 
2013-04-20 06:02:02 PM  
Perhaps Lindsey and friends should just sit this one out.

www.charlock.org
 
2013-04-20 06:02:22 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens?


Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.
 
2013-04-20 06:02:28 PM  

danvon: Nobodyn0se: So if a man is arrested and never read his Miranda rights, then taken to trial (where absolutely nothing he has said while in police custody is used against him) and he is convicted and sent to prison, you're saying he can get that conviction overturned because his 5th Amendment rights have been violated?

I'm saying no such thing. The right is against self-incrimination, Just like what the United States Supreme Court said. You appear to be blurring the lines between the right and the exclusionary rule. I can understand why as the violation of one definitely leads to the other but they are two distinct things.


So the man has his rights violated (according to you) and yet he cannot get his case overturned because of it?!?!?!

What are the possible consequences for violating his rights (as you claim) in my scenario, then? Are there none at all?
 
2013-04-20 06:03:49 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: stoli n coke: 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.

Well, until they ship him to Guantanamo, water-board him, and hold him for years without a trial, an attorney, or any means of contesting. Then you don't have to worry about what is and isn't admissible in a silly court.



Won't happen with him, no matter what some butch lesbian senator wants. This guy killed a kid and a cop. If he survives, a trial is guaranteed.
 
2013-04-20 06:05:57 PM  

Nobodyn0se: So the man has his rights violated (according to you) and yet he cannot get his case overturned because of it?!?!?!


The reason the case will not be overturned is because under your scenario, none of the evidence that was illegally garnered was used against him. His conviction was not based upon illegally seized and submitted evidence.

Nobodyn0se: What are the possible consequences for violating his rights (as you claim) in my scenario, then? Are there none at all?


I suppose he/she may have a 1983 suit but I cannot think of any instance where one brought a suit against the state for violating that constitutional right.
 
2013-04-20 06:07:42 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?


We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?


mimg.ugo.com
 
2013-04-20 06:09:38 PM  

danvon: Nobodyn0se: So the man has his rights violated (according to you) and yet he cannot get his case overturned because of it?!?!?!

The reason the case will not be overturned is because under your scenario, none of the evidence that was illegally garnered was used against him. His conviction was not based upon illegally seized and submitted evidence.

Nobodyn0se: What are the possible consequences for violating his rights (as you claim) in my scenario, then? Are there none at all?

I suppose he/she may have a 1983 suit but I cannot think of any instance where one brought a suit against the state for violating that constitutional right.



So you say his rights were violated, and yet he has zero repercussion (aside from a "maybe" that you can't cite every happening before).

I say his rights weren't violated, and thus he has nothing to get repercussion for.

I'm starting to think my explanation makes WAY more sense, aren't you?
 
2013-04-20 06:09:53 PM  
I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?
 
2013-04-20 06:11:20 PM  

coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?


I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.
 
2013-04-20 06:14:52 PM  

Nobodyn0se: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.


Pretty girl last night said she was in Model UN with him.
He's probably at least aware of the Miranda reading.
 
2013-04-20 06:15:18 PM  

coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?


May have something to do with the fact that when they found him, he had massive blood loss and was drifting in and out of conciousness and would not remember being mirandized anyway.

Pretty sure the cops were just trying to find out if he had any more partners still on the loose before he passed out.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:13 PM  

DamnYankees: TerminalEchoes: Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens?

Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.


You make sense and I can't really muster a logical argument against it. That being said, the whole idea still rubs me the wrong way. But I guess that's my problem.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:20 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nobodyn0se: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.

Pretty girl last night said she was in Model UN with him.
He's probably at least aware of the Miranda reading.


I would hope so, but I've heard of dumber things happening.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:35 PM  

SkinnyHead: 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.


Unless that evidence was obtained due to him being question without being mirandized.

"I keep all my bomb making information under a loose floorboard, and the password to decrypt my hard drive is fuzzy wuzzy was a bear."

"Hey he was telling the truth!"

Two months later...

"Your honor this evidence can't be used court, because officers questioned my client before he was read his rights, including the right to counsel, thus leading to it's discovery."

Law enforcement should play this by the book as much as possible so that this SOB will go away fro the rest of his life, and so they can avoid any pled deals. The only deal that should be made is the  possibility of parole in 40 years if he provides good intel on people that may have helped him.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:45 PM  

Nobodyn0se: I say his rights weren't violated, and thus he has nothing to get repercussion fo


Well, the US Supreme Court says (and the US Const.) that there is a right against self incrimination and that exclusion of that evidence is the sanction for a violation of that right, so it's not simply me saying it.

In order to get repercussions one has to show harm. I'm not sure what harm one actually suffered in a scenario of being interrogated with out being mirandized but I'm sure someone could craft a reason.

No, your  explanation only makes sense if you make the false assumption that the use of the evidence is a violation of the right. That is not the right.  That is the sanction. The use of that evidence in a court of law over objections that the evidence should be excluded would be a violation of the right of Due Process of Law.
 
2013-04-20 06:16:51 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: 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?

We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?


[mimg.ugo.com image 392x214]


What is over when the Czechs bombed Boston?
 
2013-04-20 06:18:39 PM  

danvon: Nobodyn0se: I say his rights weren't violated, and thus he has nothing to get repercussion fo

Well, the US Supreme Court says (and the US Const.) that there is a right against self incrimination and that exclusion of that evidence is the sanction for a violation of that right, so it's not simply me saying it.

In order to get repercussions one has to show harm. I'm not sure what harm one actually suffered in a scenario of being interrogated with out being mirandized but I'm sure someone could craft a reason.

No, your  explanation only makes sense if you make the false assumption that the use of the evidence is a violation of the right. That is not the right.  That is the sanction. The use of that evidence in a court of law over objections that the evidence should be excluded would be a violation of the right of Due Process of Law.


So you're sticking with "his rights were violated, but he has absolutely no recourse for it."

Got it.
 
2013-04-20 06:21:20 PM  
What next?  Will the next step down that slippery slope be, "no real 'merican would act this way, so the Constitution does not apply"?  If you set aside our rights because you find the person contemptible, who will stand up for you when the same happens to someone merely protesting something?

We've already lost too much in this war on terror.  Just like we lost too much in the war on drugs and every other pseudo war.  Enough is enough.

How about we get a new Constitutional amendment.  Any politician who says it's ok to ignore the Constitution is deemed permanently unfit for office, fark-tard.
 
2013-04-20 06:22:13 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.


It's the exclusionary rule applying because a right hasn't been properly waived.  Miranda stands for the proposition that a defendant cannot waive his right to remain silent or to an attorney unless he has been explicitly informed of them.
 
2013-04-20 06:23:47 PM  

Nobodyn0se: So you're sticking with "his rights were violated, but he has absolutely no recourse for it."


No monetary recourse, but he does have a recourse by being able to keep that evidence out of court. The exclusionary rule is the recourse. Not the right. The exclusionary rule is a court/judge created sanction for violation of a right protected by, in relevant instances, the 4th and 5th amendments.
 
2013-04-20 06:24:20 PM  

CheapEngineer: \he's not a member of the frickin Obama administration, you toad


Yeah, the Obama administration has done a spectacular job of stopping these blatant violation of our Constitution and international law.
 
2013-04-20 06:24:54 PM  

Cataholic: It's the exclusionary rule applying because a right hasn't been properly waived. Miranda stands for the proposition that a defendant cannot waive his right to remain silent or to an attorney unless he has been explicitly informed of them.


I don't disagree.
 
2013-04-20 06:25:02 PM  

stoli n coke: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

May have something to do with the fact that when they found him, he had massive blood loss and was drifting in and out of conciousness and would not remember being mirandized anyway.

Pretty sure the cops were just trying to find out if he had any more partners still on the loose before he passed out.


From what I read it seems as though they don't want to Mirandize him at all (the Justice Department is broadly applying a narrow public safety law), but perhaps I'm wrong.
 
2013-04-20 06:25:31 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nobodyn0se: coco ebert: I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone tell me what's wrong with giving him a Miranda warning? I'm assuming they did it to the DC snipers, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc. Why not him?

I'm assuming they want some sort of actionable intelligence from him, such as names and locations of other terrorists outside the US. If he knew his Miranda rights, it would be harder for them to get that info, or at least that's the theory.

Pretty girl last night said she was in Model UN with him.
He's probably at least aware of the Miranda reading.

I would hope so, but I've heard of dumber things happening.


All the kids who knew Whitecap I've seen interviewed have been quite articulate, more so than the usual, "OMG, I can't believe it!" stuff we usually see in aftermath interviews. I think this kid was no dummy. Although most of his family seems delusional.
 
2013-04-20 06:27:24 PM  

danvon: Nobodyn0se: So you're sticking with "his rights were violated, but he has absolutely no recourse for it."

No monetary recourse, but he does have a recourse by being able to keep that evidence out of court. The exclusionary rule is the recourse. Not the right. The exclusionary rule is a court/judge created sanction for violation of a right protected by, in relevant instances, the 4th and 5th amendments.



I'm saying the violation of the right is not the "not Mirandizing" part, it's the "Using the non-Mirandized intel against the person in a court of law" part, which doesn't contradict anything you just said.

The exclusionary rule is how they prevent a violation of this right. It's not a recourse after a right has been violated, it's a way to avoid the violation in the first place.
 
2013-04-20 06:30:49 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Using the non-Mirandized intel against the person in a court of law"


That is actually a violation of Due Process of Law.

Nobodyn0se: The exclusionary rule is how they prevent a violation of this right. It's not a recourse after a right has been violated, it's a way to avoid the violation in the first place.


I'd argue that it serves both issues.It is a recourse and a guideline.

We've beaten this dead horse to a pulp. I think we're on the same page, but just starting at different points and looking at it from different perspectives.
 
2013-04-20 06:38:42 PM  

Rabbitgod: SkinnyHead: 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.

Unless that evidence was obtained due to him being question without being mirandized.

"I keep all my bomb making information under a loose floorboard, and the password to decrypt my hard drive is fuzzy wuzzy was a bear."

"Hey he was telling the truth!"

Two months later...

"Your honor this evidence can't be used court, because officers questioned my client before he was read his rights, including the right to counsel, thus leading to it's discovery."

Law enforcement should play this by the book as much as possible so that this SOB will go away fro the rest of his life, and so they can avoid any pled deals. The only deal that should be made is the  possibility of parole in 40 years if he provides good intel on people that may have helped him.


Actually, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule does not apply to physical evidence seized as a result of a  Miranda violation.  If he talks voluntarily, without getting a Miranda warning, and his statements lead to the discovery of physical evidence, the physical evidence will not be excluded.
 
2013-04-20 06:39:31 PM  

FlashHarry: 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.

i understand the miranda exemption. but he MUST be tried as any american citizen would be tried, with ALL the rights due to him under the constitution.

lindsay graham wants to turn this country into a police state. he is a real piece of shiat.


Fact - Any US citizen can be held indefinitely without access to any of those rights.

Fact - Lindsey Graham isn't the one who made it that way.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama -s igns-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

"With reservations" my ass.
 
2013-04-20 06:47:20 PM  
Lindsey Graham is a fool who happens to be up for re-election.

The Boston bomber is a murderer and should be treated as such.
 
2013-04-20 06:48:19 PM  

SkinnyHead: Rabbitgod: SkinnyHead: 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.

Unless that evidence was obtained due to him being question without being mirandized.

"I keep all my bomb making information under a loose floorboard, and the password to decrypt my hard drive is fuzzy wuzzy was a bear."

"Hey he was telling the truth!"

Two months later...

"Your honor this evidence can't be used court, because officers questioned my client before he was read his rights, including the right to counsel, thus leading to it's discovery."

Law enforcement should play this by the book as much as possible so that this SOB will go away fro the rest of his life, and so they can avoid any pled deals. The only deal that should be made is the  possibility of parole in 40 years if he provides good intel on people that may have helped him.

Actually, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule does not apply to physical evidence seized as a result of a  Miranda violation.  If he talks voluntarily, without getting a Miranda warning, and his statements lead to the discovery of physical evidence, the physical evidence will not be excluded.


Doesn't change the validity of my argument, this case and everything about it, including the suspect, should be carried on a fine silk pillow, so we can smother the mother farker with it when the trail comes.
 
2013-04-20 06:58:23 PM  

TerminalEchoes: DamnYankees: TerminalEchoes: Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens?

Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.

You make sense and I can't really muster a logical argument against it. That being said, the whole idea still rubs me the wrong way. But I guess that's my problem.


There's a reason the fifth amendment mentions "persons" and not "citizens". If the idea still rubs you the wrong way, then what you're really saying is that the Constitution itself rubs you the wrong way.
 
2013-04-20 07:00:43 PM  

Bucky Katt: Lindsey Graham is a fool who happens to be up for re-election.

The Boston bomber is a murderer and should be treated as such.



He is. Outside of the bombing, he's about to get a state charge in the death of the MIT cop.
He's going to go to trial, no matter what the Alex Jones crowd thinks.
 
2013-04-20 07:04:15 PM  
Lindsey Graham and other members of the GOP Fail Squad wants the Boston Bomber to be classified as an "enemy combatant"?

Because that worked out so well in terms of conviction rates over at Gitmo?

Protip to LG: Obey the Law, try this reprehensible criminal by the books and put him away for life.

/And the next time you shiat yourself out of fear of terrorism try not to be squatting over the Constitution when you do so.
 
2013-04-20 07:05:05 PM  

Amos Quito: ow politicians might see you


Actually, the politicians I voted for are grateful someone out there had the common sense to elect them over some social conservative. And they've actually done their part in improving society. Too bad you see that as people catching fish or raising pigs.

tl:dr thanks for your utter inability to defend your paranoid unsustainable opinions.
 
2013-04-20 07:11:23 PM  

Brubold: FlashHarry: 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.

i understand the miranda exemption. but he MUST be tried as any american citizen would be tried, with ALL the rights due to him under the constitution.

lindsay graham wants to turn this country into a police state. he is a real piece of shiat.

Fact - Any US citizen can be held indefinitely without access to any of those rights.

Fact - Lindsey Graham isn't the one who made it that way.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama -s igns-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

"With reservations" my ass.


Well he certainly helped.

Under the 'worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial' provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.


And Obama at least used the threat of vetoing the bill to get some changes made.


President Obama initially threatened to veto the NDAA, but then indicated he would agree to sign a revised version that allowed the president to issue such waivers on his own and no longer explicitly banned the use of civilian courts in prosecuting Al Qaeda suspects.
 
2013-04-20 07:12:31 PM  
Also, has it been pointed out that Lindsey Graham is an awfully funny name. I wonder if he dyes his hair, too?
 
2013-04-20 07:17:40 PM  
Just a reminder that anyone who believes a word from our resident GED in law is a fool.
 
2013-04-20 07:22:15 PM  
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Seems to me Senator Graham has said this a few times.  Interesting interpretation.
 
2013-04-20 07:22:45 PM  

HighOnCraic: TheShavingofOccam123: 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?

We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?


[mimg.ugo.com image 392x214]

What is over when the Czechs bombed Boston?


http://www.fark.com/comments/7708723/Czech-ambassador-would-like-to- in form-you-that-Czech-Republic-Chechnya-are-two-very-different-entities& new=1#new
 
2013-04-20 07:25:34 PM  
What if he's not the right guy?  I'm not trolling, but without due process to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, we yield to trial by media/internet.  It's a dangerous precedent, and short of a confession, it's what this nation needs right now.
What if he was only involved with the robberies and shootings Thursday night, and wasn't involved in the bombing?  What if it was actually someone else, and actually taking this guy to trial leads to another person being responsible?
Don't we have to follow due process on this?  He's in custody, his brother's dead, and I'm sure there'll be plenty against him, but that doesn't mean throw out the entire justice process.
 
2013-04-20 07:25:54 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: I think the frustration of being a self-loathing, closeted, gay Republican has finally made poor Lindsay crack...


schydrogen.org

So I'm not the only one getting "Totally gay" vibes off this pic.Good.
 
2013-04-20 07:30:54 PM  

Semantic Warrior: What if he's not the right guy?  I'm not trolling, but without due process to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, we yield to trial by media/internet.  It's a dangerous precedent, and short of a confession, it's what this nation needs right now.
What if he was only involved with the robberies and shootings Thursday night, and wasn't involved in the bombing?  What if it was actually someone else, and actually taking this guy to trial leads to another person being responsible?
Don't we have to follow due process on this?  He's in custody, his brother's dead, and I'm sure there'll be plenty against him, but that doesn't mean throw out the entire justice process.


Since they were racially profiled, my guess is that he and his brother are innocent, and were forced into violence by an oppressive and racist system.  A systematic system that systematically chooses the winners and the losers.  And if you aren't white, christian, males, you lose.
 
2013-04-20 07:31:06 PM  

TerminalEchoes: DamnYankees: TerminalEchoes: Why should our Constitution protect people who aren't citizens?

Well, there's tons of reasons, but there are two very obvious, one philosophical and one practical:

On the philosophical size, the reasons we have these rights is not transactional. You don't get these rights in exchange for some sort of payment you'd made as a citizen. You get them because, as we say in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All men, not all citizens. Over time we've pushed to make that definition more expansive not less, including women and minorities. We restrict the government from doing things to you not because you have 'earned' that right, but because the government does not have the authority to take your rights away. There's nothing in any of this philosophy which draws any line between citizens and not, for good reason.

On the practical side, I'm pretty sure if you were accused of a crime in another country, you'd want the protection of their laws. I presume you wouldn't be ok being tortured in a French prison for being accused of stealing bread simply because you aren't French.

You make sense and I can't really muster a logical argument against it. That being said, the whole idea still rubs me the wrong way. But I guess that's my problem.


You do have a few unique and exclusive rights as a citizen.

You have the right to enter the country at any time and remain in the country with no restrictions without requiring a visa.
You have the right to accept legal employment without requiring a visa.
If you are 18 years or older you have the right to vote in all elections.
You have the right to advice and protection within the law from the State Department and US Embassies and Consulates overseas.
In most cases, any children born to you anywhere in the world are eligible to claim US citizenship.

As far as the rest is concerned, such as due process of law, those fall under human rights and the principle isn't about giving rights, it's about following judicial procedure deliberately and carefully constructed to preserve said human rights.

It's also quite practical as human trafficking is a major and truly brutal crime that would very likely become a plague if the victims had no legal protection. Anyone with even a shred of decency should be willing to hand out any and all legal protection to those victims if for no other reason than to provide a means to get their hands on the inhuman monsters who practice that vile trade.
 
2013-04-20 07:35:49 PM  
What part of "small government" translates as "totalitarian police state"?
 
2013-04-20 07:37:27 PM  

RanDomino: What part of "small government" translates as "totalitarian police state"?


The part where the 2nd amendment is infringed upon.
 
2013-04-20 07:39:33 PM  

The_Sponge: HighOnCraic: TheShavingofOccam123: 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?

We have rights in this country. Now, who wants to use their guns to torture this guy? Come on, who's with me now?


[mimg.ugo.com image 392x214]

What is over when the Czechs bombed Boston?

http://www.fark.com/comments/7708723/Czech-ambassador-would-like-to- in form-you-that-Czech-Republic-Chechnya-are-two-very-different-entities& new=1#new


[that'sthejoke.jpg]

The actual line from "Animal House" was, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"  I didn't think that was obscure. . .
 
2013-04-20 07:44:23 PM  

IlGreven: 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.


I find it just about right. Those people will tell you all day that those are totally different.
 
2013-04-20 07:46:20 PM  

HighOnCraic: [that'sthejoke.jpg]

The actual line from "Animal House" was, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" I didn't think that was obscure. . .



Oh no....I knew the reference....just thought you might get a kick out of that thread.
 
2013-04-20 07:49:08 PM  

RanDomino: What part of "small government" translates as "totalitarian police state"?


You have to admit, it cuts down on the bureaucracy.
 
2013-04-20 07:50:28 PM  
i33.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-20 07:53:52 PM  

The_Sponge: HighOnCraic: [that'sthejoke.jpg]

The actual line from "Animal House" was, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" I didn't think that was obscure. . .


Oh no....I knew the reference....just thought you might get a kick out of that thread.


No worries.  I was there; I got drawn into minor silliness at the end. . .
 
2013-04-20 08:00:31 PM  
A Republican from a southern state?  Well color me shocked.

Its amazing how people who like to shout about how much they love the Constitution are usually the first to try and toss it out when its inconvenient.
 
2013-04-20 08:05:08 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


You should be out telling the cops to let the suspect go, on account of how badly they bungled the manhunt. And over interpreting the constitution for Scalia or something. You're unneeded here.
 
2013-04-20 08:05:47 PM  
I don't know why y'all think Ol' Lin is stupid, just because he is calling for the courts to do something they can't. He knows that - but his constituents  don't.
It's a common tactic among politicians with his sort of constituents. He can turn to them now, and say: "See? I CALLED for this turrist to be treated as a foreign combatant! But them thar pointy headed intellechules wouldn' do it!!"
It's all win for him, and no real harm done.
 
2013-04-20 08:15:45 PM  

jso2897: I don't know why y'all think Ol' Lin is stupid, just because he is calling for the courts to do something they can't. He knows that - but his constituents  don't.
It's a common tactic among politicians with his sort of constituents. He can turn to them now, and say: "See? I CALLED for this turrist to be treated as a foreign combatant! But them thar pointy headed intellechules wouldn' do it!!"
It's all win for him, and no real harm done.



Only until someone introduces a bill that makes it easier to invoke 'enemy combatant' status. When that happens, he's faced with "do I toe the party line and win the next election, or do I do what's right and expose myself as a hypocrite".

/Of course the real answer is 'vote however the lobbyists tell me to and make up imaginary scenarios to justify my vote', but his constituents don't know that.
 
2013-04-20 08:17:25 PM  

NateAsbestos: Churchy LaFemme: I think the frustration of being a self-loathing, closeted, gay Republican has finally made poor Lindsay crack...

[schydrogen.org image 350x462]

So I'm not the only one getting "Totally gay" vibes off this pic.Good.


I believe the proper nomenclature is "confirmed bachelor"
 
2013-04-20 08:28:25 PM  
Freeperland is surprisingly divided on this. Some of them are upset that it is a federal case in the first place.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3010273/posts

Natural born citizen only applies to if he can run for president it doesn't apply elsewhere.
Anyone accused of a crime by King Obama deserves protection under the constitution.

I hate it when conservatives drop their principles for whatever reason. This guy is a citizen and committed a crime in Massachusetts. he should be tried like everyone else. He is not an enemy combatant. We should do this because that's what U.S. law says. But the added benefit of protecting our own rights. The Obamas, Bushes etc. of the world would love this guy to be an enemy combatant. They can make anyone they don't like an enemy combatant and call in a drone strike against them. Someday when you are taken out by a drone strike for voting Republican, you have only yourself to blame for abandoning the U.S. Constitution and U.S, principles at the drop of a hat. You are a total tool of the left.
 
2013-04-20 08:31:31 PM  
Looks like the point is moot.


Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hospitalized, unable to answer questions

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/boston-marathon-explosions/jubi la tion-thanks-after-boston-marathon-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-captured-a fter-daylong-manhunt
 
2013-04-20 08:31:54 PM  

El Pachuco: the Constitution protects the rights of all persons, not just citizens.


GTFO with all that crazy talk!
 
2013-04-20 08:34:00 PM  

GoldSpider: SkinnyHead: 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.

This may be the first time in the history of Fark you were ever right about anything.


It truly is a weird week.
 
2013-04-20 08:42:04 PM  

FlashHarry: lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.


He hates us for our freedom.
 
2013-04-20 08:54:33 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: NateAsbestos: Churchy LaFemme: I think the frustration of being a self-loathing, closeted, gay Republican has finally made poor Lindsay crack...

[schydrogen.org image 350x462]

So I'm not the only one getting "Totally gay" vibes off this pic.Good.

I believe the proper nomenclature is "confirmed bachelor"



Nope. George Clooney is a confirmed bachelor, and gets more tang than NASA.
Lindsey Graham is gayer than spooge on a moustache.
 
2013-04-20 09:05:19 PM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: ow politicians might see you

Actually, the politicians I voted for are grateful someone out there had the common sense to elect them over some social conservative. And they've actually done their part in improving society. Too bad you see that as people catching fish or raising pigs.

tl:dr thanks for your utter inability to defend your paranoid unsustainable opinions.



Which "paranoid unsustainable opinions", whidbey?

Oh and I have to ask... when you wrote above...


whidbey: 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.



Was this in reference to something I actually SAID sometime? Or is this one of those responses you randomly pull out of your ass when you can't think of anything else to say?
 
2013-04-20 09:05:33 PM  

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

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?




Probably for the same reason that everyone who believes that "they need guns to prevents the soon-to-come overreach of the tyranny of the federal government by sending in the military to take their guns" have a tendecy to vote for the people who insist on funneling a large percentage of our GDP into maintaining an overwhelming military (to better take over small militias with guns).
 
2013-04-20 09:05:41 PM  

Ranger Rover: Peter von Nostrand: Ranger Rover: FlashHarry: Sock Ruh Tease: He's just saying what every Republican senator is thinking.

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?

Why are we blaming this only on Republicans when it seems the Obama administration is leading the charge, both with this guy specifically and and in the past as far as attempts to widen the public safety exemption?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4244802/boston-bombing-miranda-war ni ng-put-on-hold-public-safety-exception

You do realize that's totally different than declaring the guy an enemy combatant, right?

Yeah, that's a good point, I shouldn't be conflating the two. But I do think they at least go together, inasmuch as Graham has also expressed support for not Mirandizing him, and that enemy combatant status is a way around Mirandizing like the public safety expression. But, point conceded.

It seems like this has turned into a gun thread.


Don't they all anymore?
 
2013-04-20 09:09:04 PM  

HighOnCraic: Looks like the point is moot.


Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hospitalized, unable to answer questions

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/boston-marathon-explosions/jubi la tion-thanks-after-boston-marathon-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-captured-a fter-daylong-manhunt



So remain silent he shall.

Still, the very implication of the whole "enemy combatant" invocation is chilling.
 
2013-04-20 09:15:17 PM  

Amos Quito: HighOnCraic: Looks like the point is moot.


Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hospitalized, unable to answer questions

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/boston-marathon-explosions/jubi la tion-thanks-after-boston-marathon-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-captured-a fter-daylong-manhunt


So remain silent he shall.

Still, the very implication of the whole "enemy combatant" invocation is chilling.


You know who ELSE is chilling?

snl.jt.org
 
2013-04-20 09:35:30 PM  

stoli n coke: Nope. George Clooney is a confirmed bachelor, and gets more tang than NASA.
Lindsey Graham is gayer than spooge on a moustache.


Okay, I actually laughed out loud. Kudos.
 
2013-04-20 09:36:30 PM  

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

why is it that those who purport to love america the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?


Yeah. For a party that constantly gibbers about how much they revere the constitution they don't seem to understand it very well.
 
2013-04-20 09:38:32 PM  

whidbey: Not surprising that the Republicans are the ones calling for stripping an American citizen of his rights. After all, they were the ones who threw the Constitution out the window shoving the PATRIOT Act down Congress's throat a decade ago.

Oh but I thought both parties were the same.


You're couldn't be more wrong. You see when the Democrats took over the white house and both houses of congress, they repealed the Patriot Act in it's entirety. I bet the republicans were hoping that Obama would strengthen it.

/hope and change and all that jazz.
 
2013-04-20 09:50:12 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.


If I could easily stand, it would be applauding. If you were not a firm favourite (I would bet of many here), I would have the chance to do so. This is absolutely right.
 
2013-04-20 10:02:12 PM  
What is not  Mirandizing this guy for 48 hours or whatever supposed to accomplish anyway? Like somebody who's been living here for 10+ years has never seen an episode of Law and Order.
 
2013-04-20 10:05:29 PM  

cloakandbadger: What is not  Mirandizing this guy for 48 hours or whatever supposed to accomplish anyway? Like somebody who's been living here for 10+ years has never seen an episode of Law and Order.


It's fodder for the Alex Jones grist mill. Since the arrest didn't go down like they do on 80s cop shows, there must be a conspiracy to botch the investigation and let this ebil muslin terrist go.
 
2013-04-20 10:12:27 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.


Missed this JEWEL of a comment until timelady posted reference to it above.

Most apropos. Bravo.


Extra Catnip and FancyFeast for you, KP.

4/20?

;-)
 
2013-04-20 10:17:58 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, which is why our good man Lindsay wants authorities to be allowed to torture him.

This isn't just about reading Miranda rights, this is about old white men to be allowed to do whatever they want to brown people who might not have the same religious beliefs as them.
 
2013-04-20 10:18:38 PM  

Amos Quito: 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.

Missed this JEWEL of a comment until timelady posted reference to it above.

Most apropos. Bravo.


Extra Catnip and FancyFeast for you, KP.

4/20?

;-)



img854.imageshack.us

Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I spoke to you.
 
2013-04-20 10:22:10 PM  

the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."


Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.
 
2013-04-20 10:24:02 PM  

cloakandbadger: What is not  Mirandizing this guy for 48 hours or whatever supposed to accomplish anyway? Like somebody who's been living here for 10+ years has never seen an episode of Law and Order.


I don't ever recall watching that show, certainly not from start to finish.
 
2013-04-20 10:25:34 PM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.



That got you a "smart" click.
 
2013-04-20 10:28:56 PM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.


I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.
 
2013-04-20 10:37:52 PM  
I don't think Lindsey Graham actually believes this, he's just throwing some red meat to the Republican voters.
Remember he's got no say over how this guy is to be treated while in custody.

He's up for re-election next year, and his poll numbers are dropping, largely because a lot of SC republicans don't think he is conservative enough. He talks to democrats and reach compromises. He voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. He is working for immigration reform (they call him "Grahamnesty" down here)... and that has him in trouble with SC republicans.  Expect lots of derp from Graham in the next 18 months so he can get re-elected.

There's a decent chance he may get "primaried", and believe me... if you don't like this, you will shudder to see what will replace him.

This is the same state that Gingrich won in the primaries. Gingrich.
This is the same state where the governor won because she got Sarah Palin's endorsement... AFTER Palin lost the election and quit as governor.
This is the same state where Mark Sanford, the ex-governor that used state money to visit his Argentinian mistress, has a decent shot of being re-elected to his old US House seat in the coming weeks.

Be afraid... be very afraid...
 
2013-04-20 10:43:59 PM  

dericwater: I don't understand why not BC for private sale.


Because it ties directly into a government-operated database. It is a valid assumption that anyone with their name in this system who passes has purchased at least N firearms x number of database inquiries

In other countries, such databases have been used for confiscation purposes. And with the recent spate of nutjobs, anti-gun hysteria is at an all time high.

Call me paranoid, but those few pieces of information lead me to be extremely leery of attempts to increase the amount of names in the background checking system.

dericwater: If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase.


Oddly enough, the last few felonious nutcases have been people that stole their guns from people who had legally purchased them (and passed their checks). I question the efficacy of your system.

dericwater: You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun.


Believe it or not, this is how gun sales online are done. You nominate a dealer, seller ships there, you show up with ID and a fee, and you get your item if you clear.

No point here, just cool to know.

dericwater: How much of a hassle is that?


Huge, considering a private transaction between private citizens.

dericwater: If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.


This is just asinine.
 
2013-04-20 10:46:12 PM  
I love how he thinks drones are a magic device that can do star-wars-esque tracking of suspects. A Drone.

Some people seriously just need to die, because their feeble minds can't grasp reality anymore.
 
2013-04-20 10:50:00 PM  

HighOnCraic: Looks like the point is moot.


Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hospitalized, unable to answer questions

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/boston-marathon-explosions/jubi la tion-thanks-after-boston-marathon-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-captured-a fter-daylong-manhunt


For once, someone could have said the "point is mute" and I would have been OK with it...you missed your chance.
 
2013-04-20 10:53:43 PM  
Just because he didn't show mercy doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't either. We should be the better man. Whatever rights he has are his until sentence is passed.

"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." - FDR
 
2013-04-20 10:59:03 PM  

dericwater: TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.

I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.



And Pressure Cookers!
 
2013-04-20 11:01:26 PM  

Amos Quito: 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.


Was this in reference to something I actually SAID sometime? Or is this one of those responses you randomly pull out of your ass when you can't think of anything else to say?


I love how you try to worm out of the criticism by insisting that isn't your total worldview. You hate poor people, you hate social security, and both parties violate your big government rule. Not exactly left-leaning.
 
2013-04-20 11:11:44 PM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: 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.


Was this in reference to something I actually SAID sometime? Or is this one of those responses you randomly pull out of your ass when you can't think of anything else to say?

I love how you try to worm out of the criticism by insisting that isn't your total worldview. You hate poor people, you hate social security, and both parties violate your big government rule. Not exactly left-leaning.



What is "my total worldview" whidbey? You're fantasizing - and you're on a ROLL!

Don't hold back buddy! LET ER' RIP!

/Dude, happy 4/20 day!
//You're high! Enjoy!
///But PASS the bong once in a while!


Love ya, whid.

;-)

/Just a thought...
//What if thoughts actually became things?
///Well then, we'd better thing GOOD ones, hadn't we?
 
2013-04-20 11:17:27 PM  

Amos Quito: What is "my total worldview" whidbey?


Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.
 
2013-04-20 11:23:33 PM  

Guess_Who: whidbey: Not surprising that the Republicans are the ones calling for stripping an American citizen of his rights. After all, they were the ones who threw the Constitution out the window shoving the PATRIOT Act down Congress's throat a decade ago.

Oh but I thought both parties were the same.

You're couldn't be more wrong. You see when the Democrats took over the white house and both houses of congress, they repealed the Patriot Act in it's entirety. I bet the republicans were hoping that Obama would strengthen it.

/hope and change and all that jazz.


Because Congress's failure to repeal PATRIOT in a bi-partisan fashion represents the whole of the past 5 years of effort. No other accomplishments have been brought to bear.

Take a look it. It's an impressive list. Really gotta wonder which Republican policies would have resembled some of those accomplishments had McCain or Romney won their respective elections.

Yeah, but keep telling us how there's no difference between the two ideologies. That busted holier than though "libertarian" talking point really gets old when actual evidence proves otherwise.
 
2013-04-20 11:35:15 PM  
whidbey
Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.

What's amazing is that most people think you're sane and we're crazy.
 
2013-04-20 11:37:34 PM  
Lindsey Graham should be censured.
 
2013-04-20 11:39:01 PM  

stoli n coke: 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.


The Shield was pretty farking awesome though.
 
2013-04-20 11:40:43 PM  

whidbey: Guess_Who: whidbey: Not surprising that the Republicans are the ones calling for stripping an American citizen of his rights. After all, they were the ones who threw the Constitution out the window shoving the PATRIOT Act down Congress's throat a decade ago.

Oh but I thought both parties were the same.

You're couldn't be more wrong. You see when the Democrats took over the white house and both houses of congress, they repealed the Patriot Act in it's entirety. I bet the republicans were hoping that Obama would strengthen it.

/hope and change and all that jazz.

Because Congress's failure to repeal PATRIOT in a bi-partisan fashion represents the whole of the past 5 years of effort. No other accomplishments have been brought to bear.

Take a look it. It's an impressive list. Really gotta wonder which Republican policies would have resembled some of those accomplishments had McCain or Romney won their respective elections.

Yeah, but keep telling us how there's no difference between the two ideologies. That busted holier than though "libertarian" talking point really gets old when actual evidence proves otherwise.


Yes it's so satisfying to know that if you don't get locked up in a dark hole by our government with no legal recourse then you can enjoy some of the changes Obama has made. If you even approve of the changes to begin with.

Obama has been worse than Bush in regard to taking our rights away and lack of transparency. And that's pretty farking bad by anyone's standards.
 
2013-04-20 11:41:04 PM  
I love Lindsey Graham. Being a South Carolinian, I never know what side he's going to be on.

I would buy this if he would have started with the Ft Hood shooter. These are all based on intent anyway, like enhancements for hate crimes. They're thought crimes.
 
2013-04-20 11:42:47 PM  

dericwater: TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.

I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.


Because chances are, in cases of private sales, it's unlikely that the individual is making it to an unknown person (and if they are, they're twice a fool). "Private sales" or private transfers should not include situations where I sell my gun to my friend whom I've known for 20 years, or if I am bequeathed an antique firearm that's been in the family for generations; and I suspect that it's those kind of transactions that many people (although not gun sellers) have an issue with.

Now, people who are dumb enough to be selling their personal firearms on Craigslist or somesuch are the kind to fall for the gun-nut okey-doke about how these kinds of exchanges are identical to selling a gun to a friend and NOT a commercial transaction; but that's just an example how muddy the waters have become over the last couple of decades. There should clearly be a difference between transferring a weapon to a known individual (private) and selling it online to any taker (commercial) and there should be a waiver mechanism for the former and not the latter when it comes to background checks. Just like when you sell a car you still have to transfer the title but don't have to pay the dealer's tax if you're not a car dealer.
 
2013-04-20 11:42:49 PM  

RanDomino: whidbey
Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.

What's amazing is that most people think you're sane and we're crazy.


Well you'd be a bit daft if you felt the need to defend the worldview I'm commenting on. Still, I'd like to see the plan.
 
2013-04-20 11:46:48 PM  

Brubold: Yes it's so satisfying to know that if you don't get locked up in a dark hole by our government with no legal recourse then you can enjoy some of the changes Obama has made. If you even approve of the changes to begin with.


Changes you probably don't approve of anyway, right? And who's being "locked up in a dark hole," exactly?

Obama has been worse than Bush in regard to taking our rights away and lack of transparency. And that's pretty farking bad by anyone's standards.

I agree it sucks that the militant fascism Bush introduced into our culture hasn't been lifted yet. It's going to ultimately fark Obama in the history books. But he's trying to do it right, by having Congress do its job. You obviously want some kind of dictator who sets an even worse precedent.
 
2013-04-20 11:48:22 PM  

FlashHarry: lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.


Dont they take an oath of office? To defend the constitution?
Clearly he is a domestic terrorist bent on destroying the constitution.
Can we waterboard him to find out more critical intel??
 
2013-04-20 11:53:26 PM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.



I agree that knee-jerk legislation isn't the answer, and even as a liberal I believe that many existing state bans go too far. (It's the "right to bear arms", not "right to keep a gun locked in a safe unless you're transporting it in the trunk of your car to or from an approved destination".)

However, the most recent bill maintained the private sale exemption, had no restriction on any type of gun/accessory, and gave a lot of extra protections to gun owners/sellers, but it was voted down anyway. Why? A few conservative senators insisted that making commercial background checks more effective would magically lead to a ban and confiscation of guns, somehow.

So that really was a case of one side saying "let's enforce the ban against criminals buying guns", and the other side hearing "lets ban guns".
 
2013-04-20 11:57:19 PM  
I see you guys talking about guns but the massive destruction from the marathon bombings took no guns. The gun debate aside, what could have been done to prevent that?

If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?

We live in an extremely violent country. If the argument comes to more guns or less guns, as long as the bad guys have any guns - or other weapons for that matter - isn't more guns in the right people's hands the better way for society?
 
2013-04-21 12:03:33 AM  
then try james holmes as an enemy combatant. or anyone who murders, rapes, assaults or jaywalks. where's the line?
 
2013-04-21 12:05:35 AM  

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

why is it that those who purport to love America the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?


So much stupid, that is why.

//Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.

///Yes, the rest of the world sees what is happening and we weep for the US was the standard to live up to and it is now gone.
 
2013-04-21 12:06:20 AM  

Gyrfalcon: dericwater: TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.

I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.

Because chances are, in cases of private sales, it's unlikely that the individual is making it to an unknown person (and if they are, they're twice a fool). "Private sales" or private transfers should not include situations where I sell my gun to my friend whom I've known for 20 years, or if I am bequeathed an antique firearm that's been in the family for generations; and I suspect that it's those kind of transactions that many people (although not gun sellers) have an issue with.

Now, people who are dumb enough to be selling their personal firearms on Craigslist or somesuch are the kind to fall for ...


Dude, I don't care if a gun's being sold from a guy to his identical twin. It's a farking gun. It's a weapon that is intended to kill people. If they can't follow a modicum amount of sane regulation because "it's too much of a trouble" then they really ought not to own the gun in the first place. Treat the weapon with respect and that means any sale should follow regulations in the transaction.
 
2013-04-21 12:07:04 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: What is "my total worldview" whidbey?

Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services,



[CITATION NEEDED]


whidbey: loathing for people who receive said services,



[CITATION NEEDED]


whidbey: and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions,


Which "accomplishments"? Remember to be specific - you're in the 4/20 spotlight here, whid. Prove that you can maintain coherent thought!


whidbey: the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.



I feel no need to talk my way out of your personal fantasies, whidbey.

Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

No offense!


/But I admire you as a man who KNOWS HOW TO PARTY!
 
2013-04-21 12:07:56 AM  

avanti: //Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.


it hasn't happened yet. there's a BIG difference between obama wanting a miranda exclusion and lindsey graham wanting to try a US citizen on american soil as an 'enemy combatant.'
 
2013-04-21 12:09:01 AM  

the ha ha guy: However, the most recent bill maintained the private sale exemption, had no restriction on any type of gun/accessory, and gave a lot of extra protections to gun owners/sellers, but it was voted down anyway. Why? A few conservative senators insisted that making commercial background checks more effective would magically lead to a ban and confiscation of guns, somehow.


So what exactly did this law do then? Commercial sellers already require background checks (even at gun shows..), and if there was still the exemption for private sales then....?
 
2013-04-21 12:11:22 AM  
I'm pretty sure Graham sees no difference between these 2 brothers and all the 'freedom fighters' who left their respective countries and went to fight our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the mentality, he thinks, that qualifies them as "enemy combatants", as many think radical Islam has declared war on the US and the west in general.

The problem is that we are fighting a mentality that is back by rights, the same scenario as Timothy McVeigh.
 
2013-04-21 12:15:32 AM  
avanti
//Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.

Since the 1940s, the boom of oil, plastic, and high technology has allowed capitalism to enjoy such high rates of profit that it has been able to allow some of the wealth to trickle down to form the middle-class, particularly for the purpose of manufacturing a class of skilled managers, planners, and engineers. Starting in the late 1970s and accelerating since, discoveries of real resources have not increased fast enough to satisfy the demand for infinitely increasing profit, so those privileges have been gradually pulled back.
 
2013-04-21 12:16:27 AM  

whidbey: Yeah, but keep telling us how there's no difference between the two ideologies


Both are utterly beholden to corporate interests. Most infamously, the republicans to the energy industry and the democrats to the entertainment industry. One ruins the environment and the other ruins culture.

There are many more similarities, but this is the most important one.
 
2013-04-21 12:31:12 AM  

RanDomino: avanti
//Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.

Since the 1940s, the boom of oil, plastic, and high technology has allowed capitalism to enjoy such high rates of profit that it has been able to allow some of the wealth to trickle down to form the middle-class, particularly for the purpose of manufacturing a class of skilled managers, planners, and engineers. Starting in the late 1970s and accelerating since, discoveries of real resources have not increased fast enough to satisfy the demand for infinitely increasing profit, so those privileges have been gradually pulled back.


Eventually it might be the French Revolution all over again. I understand the privilege (right) of being able to amass wealth, but at what cost to others? The last century saw so much progress and it is eroding now. Not good.
 
2013-04-21 12:51:48 AM  
TsukasaK
Both are utterly beholden to corporate interests. Most infamously, the republicans to the energy industry and the democrats to the entertainment industry. One ruins the environment and the other ruins culture.

If you had said the financial "industry" for both you'd be hitting the mark.


avanti
Eventually it might be the French Revolution all over again. I understand the privilege (right) of being able to amass wealth, but at what cost to others?

It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.
 
2013-04-21 12:56:05 AM  

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, they don't read the miranda so he doesn't get any ideas about excercising his rights.  This is, essentially, a procedural trick.
 
2013-04-21 01:06:18 AM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: However, the most recent bill maintained the private sale exemption, had no restriction on any type of gun/accessory, and gave a lot of extra protections to gun owners/sellers, but it was voted down anyway. Why? A few conservative senators insisted that making commercial background checks more effective would magically lead to a ban and confiscation of guns, somehow.

So what exactly did this law do then? Commercial sellers already require background checks (even at gun shows..), and if there was still the exemption for private sales then....?



On the "gun control" side of things, It would have added mental health records to the NICS, and eliminated some situations where people could buy guns commercially without going through the background check.

And on the pro-gun side, it would have criminalized the creation of a gun registry, retained the exemptions for private sales, allowed interstate sales of handguns, given mentally ill veterans more chances to appeal, and anyone with a CCW permit would be exempt from background checks entirely.

But according to those against the bill, it would have criminalized private sales, created a registry, and led to bans and confiscations.
 
2013-04-21 01:19:40 AM  

Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).


Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.
 
2013-04-21 01:32:46 AM  

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.


HAHAHA, the guy is so scarred from seeing his fellow supports making "hen"-tai, he's projecting on others. I know it's hard bro, but the road to recovery isn't thinking about chickens again.. you need discipline to break the habit but we believe in you!
 
2013-04-21 01:33:37 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.


Freedom isn't free.
 
2013-04-21 01:44:28 AM  

RanDomino: It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.


When do I get to burn the capital while fiddling?
 
2013-04-21 01:55:32 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: RanDomino: It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.

When do I get to burn the capital while fiddling?


You may proceed now.
 
2013-04-21 02:21:11 AM  
I guess the Constitution doesn't apply to me then.

/shrugs
 
2013-04-21 02:29:18 AM  

RanDomino: whidbey
Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.

What's amazing is that most people think you're sane and we're crazy.



Yeah.

Funny, that.
 
2013-04-21 02:31:20 AM  

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.

Freedom isn't free.


Indeed.

/And whidbey isn't whid.
 
2013-04-21 02:31:23 AM  

avanti: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: RanDomino: It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.

When do I get to burn the capital while fiddling?

You may proceed now.


May I offer up a request?

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-21 02:44:41 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.



Seriously, honeychild, I don't get where you're coming up with this bullshiat with me being anti-tax / anti-safety net.

I'm all for real solutions, chumley. What turns ME of is that the "solutions" proffered by those you adore always cause social and fiscal dysentery - the moar you eat, the moar you shiat.

Deadly, that.


Feed on yourself much lately?
 
2013-04-21 02:53:52 AM  

bdanger3000: If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?


Oh hell.  Godfather III didn't teach anyone a damn thing (aside from "don't cast Sofia Coppola in a movie").
 
2013-04-21 03:33:15 AM  

BSABSVR: bdanger3000: If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?

Oh hell.  Godfather III didn't teach anyone a damn thing (aside from "don't cast Sofia Coppola in a movie").



Even she learned that lesson. Glad she doesn't pull a Tarantino and put herself in the flicks she directs.
/Re-watched Django tonight. QT's Aussie accent is only slightly better than when Costner tried to go Brit in Robin Hood.
 
2013-04-21 03:33:41 AM  

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.


Because nowhere in the constitution does it say a well regulated militia should be well regulated.
 
2013-04-21 03:41:34 AM  

stoli n coke: QT's Aussie accent is only slightly better than when Costner tried to go Brit in Robin Hood.


Oh lord.  That accent sounded like a Brit doing an impression of an American who sucks at an Australian accent.  If Tarantino wants to make one of his trademarks that he show up, he should look to Hitchcock and just make a cameo.
 
2013-04-21 03:58:23 AM  

elchip: The Shield was pretty farking awesome though.


Damn good show, had a very good run though it was unfortunate it left the air.  Really enjoying Southland, though.

<---- sucker for a good cop/crime drama
 
2013-04-21 06:55:48 AM  

stoli n coke: BSABSVR: bdanger3000: If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?

Oh hell.  Godfather III didn't teach anyone a damn thing (aside from "don't cast Sofia Coppola in a movie").


Even she learned that lesson. Glad she doesn't pull a Tarantino and put herself in the flicks she directs.
/Re-watched Django tonight. QT's Aussie accent is only slightly better than when Costner tried to go Brit in Robin Hood.


Unlike Hitchcock's films, nobody is looking for a QT cameo in his flicks.
 
2013-04-21 07:53:52 AM  

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.

2) By all means, keep being a borderline hypocrite because you used to own an "assault weapon" as a civilian....talk about "I had mine, do f*ck you."


Whenever someone says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets and other basic firearms gun nuts always say it's a stupid argument. However you are now  using the exact same argument over what "well-regulated" used to mean. This is class A hypocrisy.
 
2013-04-21 08:34:49 AM  

Amos Quito: 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.

Missed this JEWEL of a comment until timelady posted reference to it above.

Most apropos. Bravo.


Extra Catnip and FancyFeast for you, KP.

4/20?

;-)


**blush**

Thanks.

;3
 
2013-04-21 08:57:17 AM  
In other words, Amos Quito's unwillingness to commit to a policy position is supposed to be evidence of his intellectual integrity.
 
2013-04-21 09:45:41 AM  

vygramul: In other words, Amos Quito's unwillingness to commit to a policy position is supposed to be evidence of his intellectual integrity.


Sometimes he's funny though.

I think of him as a court jester.
 
2013-04-21 10:01:05 AM  
THIS IS THE HYPOCRISY WARNING SYSTEM. THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS DETECTED DANGEROUS LEVELS OF HYPOCRISY IN YOUR AREA. TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY.

I must have missed all the outrage about the Constitution being torn up when I read post-capture on CNN how law enforcement announced they were not reading him his Miranda rights.  Surprisingly, CNN has NOT flushed that down the memory hole and seems to still be running with it.

And what's this?  It looks like only two days ago somebody at the Huff Po thought it was newsworthy but not worth criticism when it was announced by the Justice Department.  Funny that.  I guess when a Republican says it, it's facism, but when the Democrats in charge actually do it, it's for our protection.
 
2013-04-21 10:54:55 AM  

Prussian_Roulette: THIS IS THE HYPOCRISY WARNING SYSTEM. THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS DETECTED DANGEROUS LEVELS OF HYPOCRISY IN YOUR AREA. TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY.

I must have missed all the outrage about the Constitution being torn up when I read post-capture on CNN how law enforcement announced they were not reading him his Miranda rights.  Surprisingly, CNN has NOT flushed that down the memory hole and seems to still be running with it.

And what's this?  It looks like only two days ago somebody at the Huff Po thought it was newsworthy but not worth criticism when it was announced by the Justice Department.  Funny that.  I guess when a Republican says it, it's facism, but when the Democrats in charge actually do it, it's for our protection.


that's different, obama has the white hat on. he really cares.
 
2013-04-21 11:06:52 AM  
I just wish I didn't have to see his stupid face any more. The face of a crooked mayor in some grade B Smokey and the Bandit movie.

Ugh.
 
2013-04-21 12:24:37 PM  

Prussian_Roulette: I must have missed all the outrage about the Constitution being torn up when I read post-capture on CNN how law enforcement announced they were not reading him his Miranda rights. Surprisingly, CNN has NOT flushed that down the memory hole and seems to still be running with it.

And what's this? It looks like only two days ago somebody at the Huff Po thought it was newsworthy but not worth criticism when it was announced by the Justice Department. Funny that. I guess when a Republican says it, it's facism, but when the Democrats in charge actually do it, it's for our protection.


FTA: The public safety exception dates back to a 1984 case, New York v. Quarles.

Damn that guy and his Time Machine.
 
2013-04-21 12:37:14 PM  
Amos Quito

Thanks!
 
2013-04-21 12:59:19 PM  
The bombing suspect is an american citizen.
What he is alleged to have done is a criminal act.
He should get a trial like any other american citizen for what he is accused to have done.

Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, should be shot on sight.
/just a flesh wound
//in the fleshy part of his brain
 
2013-04-21 01:12:38 PM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.


Private sale and Commercial sale. Same Gun, Same moron trying to buy it. Why is this different?

\I'm sure there are families out there who sell each other the same guns every f'ing saturday, all year long. They'll get over it, I'm bet.
\\Seriously, it's as if some gun owners think they're the only responsible gun owner, and therefore everyone that owns a gun is a responsible gun owner
\\\it would be impossible for Howard down the street to go berkshire one day and shoot up the hardware store with his semi-automatic rifle and backpack full of deer-hunting 15 round magazines
\\\\but if he did, it's be Obama's fault, of that I am sure
 
2013-04-21 01:14:43 PM  
fyi   popehat has a very good article regarding the right to remain silent

i recomend it
 
2013-04-21 01:35:12 PM  

bindlestiff2600: fyi   popehat has a very good article regarding the right to remain silent

i recomend it


Yeah, it's a good article, but it's also beside the point. Look, these weren't two pros who were trained and prepared for capture...who could remain silent while the rest of the team got clear. We're talking a snot-nosed 19-year old who idolized his big brother. When the FBI tells him his brother is dead, and that they're just looking to clean up any other potential bombs out there, he will sing like the proverbial bird. They string him along as long as they can to get as much info as they can, but I don't see this kid waking up and thinking, "Okay, say NOTHING! Demand a lawyer! Pretend to be too out of it to understand their questions!"

Sooner or later he will get a lawyer, who will talk him into fully cooperating in return for avoiding the death penalty, presuming he hasn't already waived/sung. But be a tough guy who holds out, Timothy McVeigh-style to the bitter end? I don't see it happening.
 
2013-04-21 01:40:55 PM  
DNRTFT but if Sen. Graham wants the kid to be an enemy combatant then can Jeff Bauman Jr.'s medical bills be paid by the VA?
 
2013-04-21 02:28:44 PM  

CheapEngineer: Why is this different?


Because I don't require government permission to sell any other item I might come into possession of. Why should I have to ask permission to sell something that I and ostensibly the guy buying have an explicit right to?

(And before you say car, money can change hands, I just can't get a license until the registration is sorted out. I still own the car.)

CheapEngineer: \\\it would be impossible for Howard down the street to go berkshire one day and shoot up the hardware store with his semi-automatic rifle and backpack full of deer-hunting 15 round magazines


Actually, given the recent shenanigans, it seems more likely for him to take someone else's guns and go crazy with those. You know, from the guy who passed his background check. But tell me more about how background checks will stop all this crime, please.
 
2013-04-21 02:30:30 PM  

the ha ha guy: On the "gun control" side of things, It would have added mental health records to the NICS, and eliminated some situations where people could buy guns commercially without going through the background check.

And on the pro-gun side, it would have criminalized the creation of a gun registry, retained the exemptions for private sales, allowed interstate sales of handguns, given mentally ill veterans more chances to appeal, and anyone with a CCW permit would be exempt from background checks entirely.


Sounds entirely reasonable, then.

Still kneejerk-y, especially given Obama's comments and the Dem's posturing, considering that it wouldn't have farking stopped Sandy Hook, but the law itself is completely reasonable.
 
2013-04-21 02:38:10 PM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: On the "gun control" side of things, It would have added mental health records to the NICS, and eliminated some situations where people could buy guns commercially without going through the background check.

And on the pro-gun side, it would have criminalized the creation of a gun registry, retained the exemptions for private sales, allowed interstate sales of handguns, given mentally ill veterans more chances to appeal, and anyone with a CCW permit would be exempt from background checks entirely.

Sounds entirely reasonable, then.

Still kneejerk-y, especially given Obama's comments and the Dem's posturing, considering that it wouldn't have farking stopped Sandy Hook, but the law itself is completely reasonable.


Knee-jerk is the name of the game when the second-amendment is involved, see the gun-nut opposition involving UN black Helicopter conspiracy theories.

Interstate sales would be nice, it's always annoying when you want to order something online and can't.
 
2013-04-21 03:06:14 PM  

TsukasaK: CheapEngineer: Why is this different?

Because I don't require government permission to sell any other item I might come into possession of. Why should I have to ask permission to sell something that I and ostensibly the guy buying have an explicit right to?


Really?

So if you happen to come into possession of illegal drugs, dangerous chemicals, or exotic invasive animal or plant species, the government doesn't care if you sell those?
 
2013-04-21 03:42:22 PM  
hold off on mirandizing him until you're satisfied there is no immediate threat, read him his rights, put him in jail forever via civilian courts. Simple
 
2013-04-21 03:54:54 PM  

TsukasaK: CheapEngineer: Why is this different?

Because I don't require government permission to sell any other item I might come into possession of. Why should I have to ask permission to sell something that I and ostensibly the guy buying have an explicit right to?

(And before you say car, money can change hands, I just can't get a license until the registration is sorted out. I still own the car.)

CheapEngineer: \\\it would be impossible for Howard down the street to go berkshire one day and shoot up the hardware store with his semi-automatic rifle and backpack full of deer-hunting 15 round magazines

Actually, given the recent shenanigans, it seems more likely for him to take someone else's guns and go crazy with those. You know, from the guy who passed his background check. But tell me more about how background checks will stop all this crime, please.


Nice strawman. No one is claiming that any of these rules would stop all this crime, I believe the *hope* would be that it might catch a few people that fall through the cracks. But then, you'd have to look at the idea on it's merits, and counter propose something else that might help. I can see it's much easier to just make up things, and then argue against them.

I expect that's why you're on Fark.

\so, since the last 2 publicized shootings happened this way, they all do
\\so vote Republican
 
2013-04-21 03:55:53 PM  

whidbey: Brubold: Yes it's so satisfying to know that if you don't get locked up in a dark hole by our government with no legal recourse then you can enjoy some of the changes Obama has made. If you even approve of the changes to begin with.

Changes you probably don't approve of anyway, right? And who's being "locked up in a dark hole," exactly?

Obama has been worse than Bush in regard to taking our rights away and lack of transparency. And that's pretty farking bad by anyone's standards.

I agree it sucks that the militant fascism Bush introduced into our culture hasn't been lifted yet. It's going to ultimately fark Obama in the history books. But he's trying to do it right, by having Congress do its job. You obviously want some kind of dictator who sets an even worse precedent.


I don't know where you get that from what I said. I want Obama to grow a farking spine. If he really is against these things then he needs to take a stand and not sign the bills. Either that or just be honest that he agrees with our new fascist police state. Personally I think it's the latter that's true. Just like the Democrats kept crying about the Patriot Act but kept voting to pass it. They're just playing their voters for fools and the voters are obliging them.
 
2013-04-21 04:09:09 PM  

Dafatone: So if you happen to come into possession of illegal drugs, dangerous chemicals, or exotic invasive animal or plant species, the government doesn't care if you sell those?


So did you just completely ignore the second half of my sentence or?

CheapEngineer: But then, you'd have to look at the idea on it's merits, and counter propose something else that might help.


On it's merits? Okay then.

I propose that your idea will do little to nothing to stop actual criminals, will increase theft of firearms from the innocent (not to mention the violence that goes along with that), reduce our freedom as a people, and advance one step down the slope of firearm confiscation from all. It  has happened in other countries, and it always starts with the database.
 
2013-04-21 04:21:31 PM  

TsukasaK: Dafatone: So if you happen to come into possession of illegal drugs, dangerous chemicals, or exotic invasive animal or plant species, the government doesn't care if you sell those?

So did you just completely ignore the second half of my sentence or?


That was the whole sentence.  If you mean the next sentence you wrote, then sure, there's an explicit constitutional right to guns.  This doesn't mean that the sale of guns is never regulated at all ever, and the courts agree there.
 
2013-04-21 05:51:58 PM  
This rush to trample Tsarnaev's civil rights is really outrageous. Let's handle it in the traditional Obama Administration fashion by releasing him in Pakistan and droning his ass.

i34.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-21 05:53:59 PM  

FlashHarry: lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.



That's pretty much all that needs said about this topic.
 
2013-04-21 05:57:02 PM  
i'm pretty sure i heard lindsey graham say something about a bomb - and i'm pretty sure he hates america. we should probably detain him. and since he's obviously an "enemy combatant," i don't think we should bother with that pesky constitutional stuff.
 
2013-04-21 06:34:51 PM  

FlashHarry: i'm pretty sure i heard lindsey graham say something about a bomb - and i'm pretty sure he hates america. we should probably detain him. and since he's obviously an "enemy combatant," i don't think we should bother with that pesky constitutional stuff.


Flash Harry also forgot to add that he comes from a "state" that declared war on the United States by firing on U.S. troops at a place called Fort Sumter (granted it was a few years ago so Flash Harry could easily forgotten about it).
 
2013-04-21 07:25:29 PM  

Dafatone: TsukasaK: Dafatone: So if you happen to come into possession of illegal drugs, dangerous chemicals, or exotic invasive animal or plant species, the government doesn't care if you sell those?

So did you just completely ignore the second half of my sentence or?

That was the whole sentence.  If you mean the next sentence you wrote, then sure, there's an explicit constitutional right to guns.  This doesn't mean that the sale of guns is never regulated at all ever, and the courts agree there.


Christ, pedantic much?

Also, when did I ask for no regulation whatsoever? I think the regulation we have is sufficient, and no amount of gun control regulation will stop someone determined from going on a murder spree from getting one. When you're planning murder, theft is a drop in the bucket.
 
2013-04-21 07:25:55 PM  
<A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-mara thon-dz hokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights">Graham is guilty of saying outloud, and too enthusiastically, something which has been close to bipartisan consensus for a while now</A>
 
2013-04-21 09:00:27 PM  

jjorsett: This rush to trample Tsarnaev's civil rights is really outrageous. Let's handle it in the traditional Obama Administration fashion by releasing him in Pakistan and droning his ass.

[i34.tinypic.com image 531x341]


Did Tsarnaev publicly denounce his citizenship, swear loyalty to our enemy, flee the country to join up with his new friends, and actively plot against us? No? Then stop using stupid comparisons to justify your biatch-whining.
 
2013-04-21 10:39:38 PM  

the ha ha guy: 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.


When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."


THIS. Having just come from a camping trip with two conspiracy theorists, I swear they had no idea what laws actually  meant.

/Awesome ladies, just...o.O
 
2013-04-21 10:46:33 PM  

TsukasaK: Dafatone: So if you happen to come into possession of illegal drugs, dangerous chemicals, or exotic invasive animal or plant species, the government doesn't care if you sell those?

So did you just completely ignore the second half of my sentence or?

CheapEngineer: But then, you'd have to look at the idea on it's merits, and counter propose something else that might help.

On it's merits? Okay then.

I propose that your idea will do little to nothing to stop actual criminals, will increase theft of firearms from the innocent (not to mention the violence that goes along with that), reduce our freedom as a people, and advance one step down the slope of firearm confiscation from all. It  has happened in other countries, and it always starts with the database.


You forgot Embolden our Enemies, Spread Communism, Contribute to Hair Loss and Accelerate Global Warming/Cooling/Chemtrails.

I have very little faith in our government myself, but you're at another level of fear and paranoia. I guess that high blood pressure will solve all of our problems soon enough. Personally, I try to remain optimistic and work within the flawed system we have. If you believe that everything we touch is gonna be corrupted in the worst possible way at every opportunity then you're safe, but you're gonna have a pretty miserable time on this earth.

Either the system works, or it's always gonna fail you. If it always fails, why are you worried about the bill of rights at all? Why pound on the keyboard at us idiots if everyone here is a blind idiot but you?

Have a cookie, and enjoy some sunshine.
 
2013-04-21 11:38:30 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: jjorsett: This rush to trample Tsarnaev's civil rights is really outrageous. Let's handle it in the traditional Obama Administration fashion by releasing him in Pakistan and droning his ass.

[i34.tinypic.com image 531x341]

Did Tsarnaev publicly denounce his citizenship, swear loyalty to our enemy, flee the country to join up with his new friends, and actively plot against us? No? Then stop using stupid comparisons to justify your biatch-whining.



It's hilarious that some right wingers have let their hatred of Obama become so heavy that they actually white knight an Al Qaeda member who plotted against the U.S.
 
2013-04-21 11:49:51 PM  

stoli n coke: Keizer_Ghidorah: jjorsett: This rush to trample Tsarnaev's civil rights is really outrageous. Let's handle it in the traditional Obama Administration fashion by releasing him in Pakistan and droning his ass.

[i34.tinypic.com image 531x341]

Did Tsarnaev publicly denounce his citizenship, swear loyalty to our enemy, flee the country to join up with his new friends, and actively plot against us? No? Then stop using stupid comparisons to justify your biatch-whining.


It's hilarious that some right wingers have let their hatred of Obama become so heavy that they actually white knight an Al Qaeda member who plotted against the U.S.


You realize that you two are making opposing arguments, right?

What's really interesting is that Obama sycophants apply the Constitution's protections so selectively.
 
Displayed 383 of 383 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report