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.

(Guardian)   Why are we discussing "which" rights Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should get?   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 347
    More: Scary, bill of rights, fifth amendment rights, harsh interrogation, false confessions, Mirandize, intelligence gathering, Liz Cheney, adjudications  
•       •       •

3883 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Apr 2013 at 11:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-22 11:15:55 AM  
Because Muslims.

Conservatives tend to toss out our rights in the name of security way more than anyone else.
 
2013-04-22 11:16:59 AM  
Odd how the people most distrustful of Government are the ones most likely the first to agree with the Government arbitrarily removing someone's rights.
 
2013-04-22 11:19:24 AM  
he is an american citizen charged with a crime on american soil. there is no debate here.
 
2013-04-22 11:20:07 AM  
He's an American citizen. He gets afforded all the rights any other citizen is entitled to.
 
2013-04-22 11:20:44 AM  
Because we're descending into a police state?
 
2013-04-22 11:21:41 AM  
Welcome to Cafeteria Constitution!

/don't worry, Citizen... we'd never do this to YOU
 
2013-04-22 11:22:39 AM  
Not only that, Subby, he is also innocent until proven guilty. Go and smoke that in your pipe.
 
2013-04-22 11:23:47 AM  

FlashHarry: he is an american citizen charged with a crime on american soil. there is no debate here.


But...but... TERRORIZMS!!!11!!
 
2013-04-22 11:24:22 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: He's an American citizen. He gets afforded all the rights any other citizen is entitled to.


Damn straight!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-22 11:25:09 AM  

mrshowrules: Odd how the people most distrustful of Government are the ones most likely the first to agree with the Government arbitrarily removing someone's rights.


They are only distrustful of the government to the extent that it has people who aren't their sort in it.  Right wing government is always good.
 
2013-04-22 11:27:41 AM  
I think we should quarter a solider in his house.
 
2013-04-22 11:31:54 AM  
Some Americans just can't stand the thought that he might not be tortured.
 
2013-04-22 11:33:21 AM  

JerseyTim: I think we should quarter a solider in his house.


What quartering of a soldier might look like.

www.wired.com
 
2013-04-22 11:35:06 AM  
We're not. One Republican jack wagon in the Senate is. Put him on ignore
 
2013-04-22 11:35:21 AM  
Republican legislators Graham, McCain, Ayotte and King  should all be tried for treason for suggesting that a citizen should not be afforded his constitutional rights and for violating their oath of office in defending said rights.
 
2013-04-22 11:36:27 AM  
Because what we believe is right, just, and fair should not be constrained by tribalism or a desire for revenge.
 
2013-04-22 11:37:28 AM  
Hopefully he doesn't get charged federally so he can avoid the death penalty.  Let's not make him a martyr.

/he will be charged federally.
//he'll have a needle in his arm before too long.
 
2013-04-22 11:38:03 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Because Muslims.

Conservatives tend to toss out our rights in the name of security way more than anyone else.


Truly they are the GREATEST patriots.
 
2013-04-22 11:38:41 AM  
We're not.  Only stupid people are.
 
2013-04-22 11:38:45 AM  

FlashHarry: he is an american citizen charged with a crime on american soil. there is no debate here.


True but also keep in mine that even is was a foreigner captured on foreign soil, he would still be subject to habeous corpus.   All those farkers in Gitmo are entitled to hearing and are not getting one either.
 
2013-04-22 11:39:45 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: He's an American citizen. He gets afforded all the rights any other citizen is entitled to.


So, no rights whatsoever? He is living in Obamamerica after all, the land of the oppressed and home of the cowardly.
 
2013-04-22 11:41:02 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: He's an American citizen. He gets afforded all the rights any other citizen is entitled to.


This.  American citizen on American soil.  The Constitution applies, end of story.
 
2013-04-22 11:41:04 AM  
Some food for thought on a common misunderstanding about that Miranda warning...

Hint: it's not to protect your rights, so much as give the police and prosecutors an out that they TOLD you not to incriminate yourself, but you went and talked and did it anyway...
 
2013-04-22 11:41:16 AM  
Because this isn't a fascist police state, as much as the conservatives and Tea Party wish it could be.
 
2013-04-22 11:41:25 AM  
"Those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin

/it applies to ALL restrictions and infringements.
 
2013-04-22 11:42:03 AM  

netizencain: Republican legislators Graham, McCain, Ayotte and King  should all be tried for treason for suggesting that a citizen should not be afforded his constitutional rights and for violating their oath of office in defending said rights.


Did you RTFA? OBAMA's DOJ is wanting to question him without mirandizing him. You want to try people for treason, look to the executive branch for such an egregiousness breach in civil liberties. I always hate when people use snowball logic, but this does indeed set a terrible precedent where just being suspected of terror acts could get you locked up with no representation. This guy totally did do it and therefore should get the gas chamber while being lethally injected and hung from an electric chair...and even that is too good for him. But what if they had the wrong guy? I should hope America wouldn't let an innocent person be detailed and all rights stripped just on a hunch.
 
2013-04-22 11:42:24 AM  
Because when people get scared the first thing they want to do is take away rights...or at least put "reasonable" restrictions on those rights..

This is par for the course, it shouldn't suprise anyone.
 
2013-04-22 11:42:52 AM  
Well, see, we don't like what he did, and we REALLY would like to find some stuff out for him.  Those rights would make that less convenient, so we're going to go ahead and not do them this time.
 
2013-04-22 11:43:06 AM  

JerseyTim: I think we should quarter a solider in his house.


A solider what?
 
2013-04-22 11:43:38 AM  
Does anyone really believe any of this guy's own testimony will be needed as evidence in order to secure a conviction?
 
2013-04-22 11:43:57 AM  

FlashHarry: he is an american citizen charged with a crime on american soil. there is no debate here.


Link goes to an debate.

/fail.
 
2013-04-22 11:43:58 AM  

FarkedOver: Hopefully he doesn't get charged federally so he can avoid the death penalty.


I want him to live a long life of regret. And I hope he gets to meet and explain himself to some of the people he's maimed. And he should at all times be surrounded by pictures of the child he murdered
 
2013-04-22 11:44:34 AM  

dittybopper: Dancin_In_Anson: He's an American citizen. He gets afforded all the rights any other citizen is entitled to.

This.  American citizen on American soil.  The Constitution applies, end of story.


The Constitution would apply even if wasn't a citizen.  If the US Government is in control of his capture/custody, he gets those rights.  SCOTUS has ruled on this.
 
2013-04-22 11:44:49 AM  
He still has his fifth amendment rights.

Reading of the Miranda rights is to make sure that evidence gathered after the arrest is admissible in court.  It's to protect the prosecutorial process, not protect the rights of the accused.

The DOJ is gambling that they already have enough evidence to convict, even without statements from the accused, and/or that the exception for imminent threat will allow the testimony to be admitted.
 
2013-04-22 11:45:00 AM  
It makes me wonder, do they really think he is going to get away with it, with a fair trial, with all the US legal rights? With that many witnesses, video evidence, the shooting at the cops, DNA evidence, etc. etc. It only shows that they think their fellow US citizens are farking morons of the highest order who can't be trusted. It's insulting and cowardly and a disgrace for everything the country stands for.
 
2013-04-22 11:46:21 AM  

lemurs: Does anyone really believe any of this guy's own testimony will be needed as evidence in order to secure a conviction?


Perhaps his testimony could save him from execution.
 
2013-04-22 11:46:55 AM  

mrshowrules: FlashHarry: he is an american citizen charged with a crime on american soil. there is no debate here.

True but also keep in mine that even is was a foreigner captured on foreign soil, he would still be subject to habeous corpus.   All those farkers in Gitmo are entitled to hearing and are not getting one either.


Good. I'm sure a bunch of tribal people who can't grasp the concept of not stoning women to death would give you habeous corpus and a right to a hearing.
 
2013-04-22 11:47:00 AM  
We can't very well destroy America without destroying the legal system first.  We'll start small, with a hated terrorist, and then go downhill from there.
 
2013-04-22 11:47:35 AM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: netizencain: Republican legislators Graham, McCain, Ayotte and King  should all be tried for treason for suggesting that a citizen should not be afforded his constitutional rights and for violating their oath of office in defending said rights.

Did you RTFA? OBAMA's DOJ is wanting to question him without mirandizing him. You want to try people for treason, look to the executive branch for such an egregiousness breach in civil liberties. I always hate when people use snowball logic, but this does indeed set a terrible precedent where just being suspected of terror acts could get you locked up with no representation. This guy totally did do it and therefore should get the gas chamber while being lethally injected and hung from an electric chair...and even that is too good for him. But what if they had the wrong guy? I should hope America wouldn't let an innocent person be detailed and all rights stripped just on a hunch.


You do know that you have those rights whether or not they are read to you, right?
 
2013-04-22 11:47:35 AM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: OBAMA's DOJ is wanting to question him without mirandizing him. You want to try people for treason, look to the executive branch for such an egregiousness breach in civil liberties.


Actually, that's not all that egregious, so long as they don't use his statements against him in court.

I was listening to NPR on the way into work this morning, and apparently they think they've got enough evidence that they don't *NEED* to use any statements he might make in his trial, so whether he has been Mirandized or not probably won't matter, as they won't use those statements in court.

Also, any statement they might get from him may be unusable anyway:  Say they Mirandize him, and get some information to use in court:  His lawyer can argue he didn't understand the implications of giving a statement, or his rights, because he was heavily sedated, in great pain, weak from blood loss, or all three.
 
2013-04-22 11:48:00 AM  

Richard C Stanford: I'm sure a bunch of tribal people who can't grasp the concept of not stoning women to death would give you habeous corpus and a right to a hearing


You mean the GOP?

I wouldn't count on it.
 
2013-04-22 11:48:16 AM  
I'm pretty right leaning but we don't get to decide to just not give people their rights because they did something bad. If they can take them away from one American then they aren't rights anymore, they're just privileges and I'm not OK with that.
 
2013-04-22 11:48:19 AM  
The discussion on this has been scary.  There should be no modifcation or abridgement of rights based upon the nature of the crime.  This guy should be arrested and tried like any other American on American soil.

This guy still has his Constitutional rights regardless of whether or not he is 'Mirandized'. The official warning is simply an affirmation of those rights, isn't it?
 
2013-04-22 11:48:29 AM  

Richard C Stanford: mrshowrules: FlashHarry: he is an american citizen charged with a crime on american soil. there is no debate here.

True but also keep in mine that even is was a foreigner captured on foreign soil, he would still be subject to habeous corpus.   All those farkers in Gitmo are entitled to hearing and are not getting one either.

Good. I'm sure a bunch of tribal people who can't grasp the concept of not stoning women to death would give you habeous corpus and a right to a hearing.


Ya, and the mentally retarded shouldn't be allowed to have right either, ya know.. because simply not understanding the law means you're not subject to or protected by it.  Moron.
 
2013-04-22 11:49:32 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives tend to toss out our rights in the name of security way more than anyone else.


What I would like to see more of is elected representatives being prosecuted for violating their oaths of office. They all took an oath to uphold the constitution, no?
 
2013-04-22 11:49:45 AM  
The fact that this is even up for discussion is, and I am about to throw out some legal jargon here, utter bullshiat.  If we cannot handle this as we should all other criminal prosecutions, then burn it all down and start over.
 
2013-04-22 11:50:27 AM  

mrshowrules: lemurs: Does anyone really believe any of this guy's own testimony will be needed as evidence in order to secure a conviction?

Perhaps his testimony could save him from execution.


Then he is free to give it during his trial, or his lawyer can introduce it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-22 11:51:25 AM  
Le Grand Inquisitor:

Did you RTFA? OBAMA's DOJ is wanting to question him without mirandizing him. You want to try people for treason, look to the executive branch for such an egregiousness breach in civil liberties. I always hate when people use snowball logic, but this does indeed set a terrible precedent where just being suspected of terror acts could get you locked up with no representation. This guy totally did do it and therefore should get the gas chamber while being lethally injected and hung from an electric chair...and even that is too good for him. But what if they had the wrong guy? I should hope America wouldn't let an innocent person be detailed and all rights stripped just on a hunch.

There's a bit of a difference between not formally telling someone what their rights are and simply not allowing them to have any.
 
2013-04-22 11:52:14 AM  
While I hope his cellmate is extra girthy, this guy is still supposed to have rights.
 
2013-04-22 11:52:28 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: He's an American citizen. He gets afforded all the rights any other citizen is entitled to.


Even if he wasn't an American citizen, he STILL gets the same rights to a fair trial.



A lot of folks seem to have forgotten that pesky oath that they said for years and years...

lh6.googleusercontent.com

Not "justice for the citizens and those who can afford it." not "justice for people we like." But for all.

Sadly, it's time to dust this one off again...

lh6.googleusercontent.com

And this one too...

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

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

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