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 134
    More: Sick, Lindsey Graham, Mirandize, Boston, Americans, underwear bomber, Chechen, enemy combatant, ndaa  
•       •       •

8949 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2013 at 2:43 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-20 10:06:01 AM
9 votes:
Graham and his ilk can do FAR more damage to America than any terrorist.
2013-04-20 08:44:56 AM
9 votes:
lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.
2013-04-20 09:15:22 AM
8 votes:

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 09:12:31 AM
8 votes:
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 03:02:24 PM
7 votes:
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 03:09:18 PM
6 votes:
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 01:34:49 PM
6 votes:

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 01:16:34 PM
6 votes:

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."
2013-04-20 09:40:38 AM
6 votes:

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 04:52:00 PM
5 votes:
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 03:35:32 PM
5 votes:
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 03:07:18 PM
4 votes:
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 03:05:43 PM
4 votes:

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 03:03:46 PM
4 votes:
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 03:00:35 PM
4 votes:
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 01:02:59 PM
4 votes:

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 01:01:35 PM
4 votes:

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 12:29:53 PM
4 votes:

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 09:21:24 AM
4 votes:

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 07:04:15 PM
3 votes:
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 05:19:27 PM
3 votes:
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 04:11:47 PM
3 votes:
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 03:54:51 PM
3 votes:

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 03:35:23 PM
3 votes:
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 12:02:13 PM
3 votes:
"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 10:32:36 AM
3 votes:
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 07:31:06 PM
2 votes:

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 07:25:34 PM
2 votes:
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 07:00:43 PM
2 votes:

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 05:45:54 PM
2 votes:

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 05:23:33 PM
2 votes:

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 03:57:12 PM
2 votes:
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 03:55:50 PM
2 votes:

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 03:46:12 PM
2 votes:
"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 03:45:27 PM
2 votes:

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 03:43:17 PM
2 votes:
God, I love that Graham chick, I don't care that she says crazy shiat.

3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-04-20 03:38:35 PM
2 votes:
fark you senator graham
2013-04-20 03:28:25 PM
2 votes:

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 03:14:01 PM
2 votes:

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 03:10:27 PM
2 votes:
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 02:51:32 PM
2 votes:

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 02:49:09 PM
2 votes:

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 01:22:46 PM
2 votes:

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 01:14:21 PM
2 votes:
Does every goddamn thread have to turn into a gun thread?
2013-04-20 11:47:12 AM
2 votes:
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 11:46:00 AM
2 votes:
Damn you inconvenient law!!!

We should be able to ignore the constituiton when we skeered.
2013-04-20 09:16:55 AM
2 votes:
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?
2013-04-21 09:00:27 PM
1 votes:

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 06:34:51 PM
1 votes:

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 05:53:59 PM
1 votes:

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 04:09:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:55:53 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:06:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:55 PM
1 votes:
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 12:59:19 PM
1 votes:
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 11:06:52 AM
1 votes:
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 08:57:17 AM
1 votes:
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 03:41:34 AM
1 votes:

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 01:33:37 AM
1 votes:

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 12:06:20 AM
1 votes:

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 12:03:33 AM
1 votes:
then try james holmes as an enemy combatant. or anyone who murders, rapes, assaults or jaywalks. where's the line?
2013-04-20 11:48:22 PM
1 votes:

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 11:42:49 PM
1 votes:

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 11:37:34 PM
1 votes:
Lindsey Graham should be censured.
2013-04-20 11:35:15 PM
1 votes:
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 11:17:27 PM
1 votes:

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 11:01:26 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:52 PM
1 votes:
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 10:22:10 PM
1 votes:

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 10:02:12 PM
1 votes:
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 08:00:31 PM
1 votes:
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 07:50:28 PM
1 votes:
i33.tinypic.com
2013-04-20 07:25:54 PM
1 votes:

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 07:11:23 PM
1 votes:

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 07:05:05 PM
1 votes:

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 06:58:23 PM
1 votes:

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 06:48:19 PM
1 votes:

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 06:47:20 PM
1 votes:
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 06:21:20 PM
1 votes:
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 06:18:39 PM
1 votes:

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 06:15:18 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:53 PM
1 votes:
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 06:02:02 PM
1 votes:
Perhaps Lindsey and friends should just sit this one out.

www.charlock.org
2013-04-20 05:50:53 PM
1 votes:

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 05:50:23 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:57 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:44 PM
1 votes:

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 05:45:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:40:18 PM
1 votes:
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 05:38:58 PM
1 votes:
As heinous as any crime maybe, we don't just waive rights afforded to citizens of our own country, you douche.
2013-04-20 05:34:48 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:01 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:22 PM
1 votes:
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 05:26:28 PM
1 votes:

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 05:25:16 PM
1 votes:
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 05:22:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:53 PM
1 votes:
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 05:02:44 PM
1 votes:

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


quizzicaldog.jpg
2013-04-20 04:58:12 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:11 PM
1 votes:
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 04:43:47 PM
1 votes:
Just another stupid cracker.
2013-04-20 04:33:36 PM
1 votes:
If we ignore our laws we justify the bombings.
2013-04-20 04:29:42 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:41 PM
1 votes:
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 03:49:34 PM
1 votes:

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 03:37:13 PM
1 votes:

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 03:36:26 PM
1 votes:

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 03:28:02 PM
1 votes:
What a coward.
2013-04-20 03:27:55 PM
1 votes:

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 03:22:59 PM
1 votes:

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 03:20:28 PM
1 votes:

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 03:19:33 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:51 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:48 PM
1 votes:
Justice is just welfare for the guilty.
2013-04-20 03:12:29 PM
1 votes:

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 03:08:25 PM
1 votes:

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 03:07:27 PM
1 votes:

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 03:06:42 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:38 PM
1 votes:

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 03:02:49 PM
1 votes:

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 03:02:09 PM
1 votes:
Go fark yourself, Lindsey.
2013-04-20 02:58:04 PM
1 votes:
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 02:52:41 PM
1 votes:

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 02:49:05 PM
1 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-20 01:56:22 PM
1 votes:
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 01:54:25 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-04-20 01:48:12 PM
1 votes:
Sorry, but IIRC isn't this guy a naturalized citizen?  Yae cannae deu thet, keptin!
2013-04-20 01:38:49 PM
1 votes:

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 01:37:22 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-20 12:11:06 PM
1 votes:

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

2013-04-20 11:37:38 AM
1 votes:
Just say it, Lindsey...you want him to be tortured.
2013-04-20 09:32:03 AM
1 votes:
He's just saying what every Republican senator is thinking.
 
Displayed 134 of 134 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report