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.

(CNN) NewsFlash American citizen to be tried as an American citizen. Sadly, in 2013, this warrants a news flash   (cnn.com) divider line 492
    More: NewsFlash, American citizens, Boston, Don Lemon, Americans, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Tsarnaev, Boston area  
•       •       •

11197 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2013 at 2:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-22 03:50:21 PM

FarkedOver: keylock71: FarkedOver: Giving him the death penalty is the easy way.

It's also barbaric and not befitting a supposedly civilized society, but that's just my opinion.

Oh that too.  But killing him is playing into his hand.  He will be dead probably by the time he is 30ish if he gets the needle.


They executed McVeigh a lot faster than that.  Odds are this toad will meet the same fate strapped to the same gurney.
 
2013-04-22 03:51:16 PM
Oh no...does this mean we can't torture him?  That's not fair!!
 
2013-04-22 03:51:40 PM

letrole: What a disappointment.

But at least your high-minded priciples won't suffer as a little girl picks up a booby-trapped doll left at a playground.


Torture is far less reliable than standard, LEGAL interrogation methods anyway. So take your Jack Bauer fetish and stuff it, troll.
 
2013-04-22 03:53:32 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: demaL-demaL-yeH: Uchiha_Cycliste: You know what?
I fully understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that we can deny that humans in general have urgings towards comeuppance and revenge. After 30,000 years of basic society and existence it is apparently a part of who we are. I'm torn between wanting him to have the full protection of the law, and wanting him to receive a savage and righteous beating administered by the newly limbless runners and spectators now adjusting to the rest of their life sort of sucking. I don't think I'd have a problem if those guys were taken to the hospital or dump or morgue where their former legs and arms now reside, taking those limbs to a public square where this kid is in stocks and beating the snot out of him with the limbs they will never use again.
I feel bad for those guys. I love my ,mobility, my freedom,the 45 miles a day I ride on my bike. I'm ever so grateful I can hop on a bicycle and ride a half a century and climb a few thousand feet and be at the beach in a couple hours. Where do we draw the line between civility and denying our more primal nature?

I'm honestly curious to hear what you think about this viewpoint.

Thomas Hobbes would like a word with you  r u, uncivilized ass.
FTFM

You know what, I thin kI'm gonna do my work and casually check in on fark instead of reading a several hundred year old tome that may or may not be relevant. Why don't you make an argument about why I'm wrong instead of directing me toward something that else.


Look at your question.
Since you asked it in the first damned place, I pointed you to a complete, clearly-delineated answer.
It's one of the basic documents at the very foundation of the Enlightenment,

/and you are in sore need of enlightenment.
//And Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but baby steps.
 
2013-04-22 03:53:44 PM

hinten: What does his citizenship to do with anything?


Think of his civil rights as a seesaw. On one side you have two smaller boulders - he's not brown enough (usually anything below Pantone 17-1128 TCX counts as "white" in America), and also he's a US citizen. On the other side there's only a single boulder, but it's bigger - he's definitely Muslim. So it's tough deciding on where things balance in this case as far as what rights he should have...
 
2013-04-22 03:56:24 PM

Treygreen13: thurstonxhowell: Tell them that I'm not responsible for that? Sure thing, chief.

Ok. When Laylah Crawford of Cleveland grows up, email her. She's 5 now, but she'll be old enough one day. Tell her that the man who was paroled from a murder charge and then shot her mother and 4 of her family members in the head was not the fault of the justice system and there was nothing that could have been done to stop it.



rubbercat.net

It really sounds like you've made your case. I mean, I must be the asshole here, what with not thinking of the children and all. Except for how you're a farking liar you farking asshole. Davon Crawford was in not way on parole for murder charges. Because he was never charged with murder. You made that up. It sounds real bad in your story based on real events. Speaking of those real events, why don't you go tell little Laylah how you felt so bad for her you chose to use her a prop to make other people feel bad?
 
2013-04-22 03:57:06 PM

Fubar: Texas


This. What I have been saying from day one.
Will the same kind of money and manpower be used in that case? I don't think so.

On the other hand, at least the US won't restrict its already piddling civil rights any further because of the Texas explosion.
 
2013-04-22 03:57:31 PM
AFTER BEING INTERROGATED  BY THE CIA AND OTHER "INTERROGATION" EXPERTS.

Probably without legal counsel present.  And I'm sure they'll wait until he's off all medication, out of critical condition  and in reasonable health before they tortu...er, question him.

are you retarded?
 
2013-04-22 03:58:57 PM

hinten: What does his citizenship to do with anything?


well, it doesn't. however, if he were a tea party patriot named fred johnson, i guarantee lindsey graham wouldn't be asking him to be charged as an "enemy combatant." so i'm guessing his citizenship was mentioned to reinforce this fact.
 
2013-04-22 03:59:26 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Uchiha_Cycliste: demaL-demaL-yeH: Uchiha_Cycliste: You know what?
I fully understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that we can deny that humans in general have urgings towards comeuppance and revenge. After 30,000 years of basic society and existence it is apparently a part of who we are. I'm torn between wanting him to have the full protection of the law, and wanting him to receive a savage and righteous beating administered by the newly limbless runners and spectators now adjusting to the rest of their life sort of sucking. I don't think I'd have a problem if those guys were taken to the hospital or dump or morgue where their former legs and arms now reside, taking those limbs to a public square where this kid is in stocks and beating the snot out of him with the limbs they will never use again.
I feel bad for those guys. I love my ,mobility, my freedom,the 45 miles a day I ride on my bike. I'm ever so grateful I can hop on a bicycle and ride a half a century and climb a few thousand feet and be at the beach in a couple hours. Where do we draw the line between civility and denying our more primal nature?

I'm honestly curious to hear what you think about this viewpoint.

Thomas Hobbes would like a word with you  r u, uncivilized ass.
FTFM

You know what, I thin kI'm gonna do my work and casually check in on fark instead of reading a several hundred year old tome that may or may not be relevant. Why don't you make an argument about why I'm wrong instead of directing me toward something that else.

Look at your question.
Since you asked it in the first damned place, I pointed you to a complete, clearly-delineated answer.
It's one of the basic documents at the very foundation of the Enlightenment,

/and you are in sore need of enlightenment.
//And Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but baby steps.


Well demonstrate to me you understand the argument and apply it to the situation to answer my question. If I wanted to be lazy I would just point the people talking about prison rape and punishment to Foucault's "birth of the prison" if I wanted top be helpful I'd incorporate his major points to make a cogent argument about America's rape culture.
 
2013-04-22 04:00:18 PM

Treygreen13: thurstonxhowell: Tell them that I'm not responsible for that? Sure thing, chief.

Ok. When Laylah Crawford of Cleveland grows up, email her. She's 5 now, but she'll be old enough one day. Tell her that the man who was paroled from a murder charge and then shot her mother and 4 of her family members in the head was not the fault of the justice system and there was nothing that could have been done to stop it.


Fact fail. He had never been convicted of murder. He served time in the 90's for manslaughter, but was most recently in for assault with a firearm, and would have been out by then regardless.
 
2013-04-22 04:00:40 PM
Also, you don't help your argument by opening up calling me an uncivilized ass and then saying... cuz that old guy says so. What incentive do I have to follow your link in that situation?
 
2013-04-22 04:01:20 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Keizer_Ghidorah: Well, it makes sense. Something that can harm a number of people at once would be considered a mass destruction weapon.

Really though?  Are guns WMDs?  What about the model of planes flown into WTC 1 and 2?  A car driven by an 80 year old anywhere near a Farmer's Market?

I wouldn't consider them WMDs because I think the argument pivots to the intent of the item.  Planes and cars aren't designed to kill people, but what about guns?  If we're talking explosives, what about standard explosives used in highway construction?

Look at Sandy Hook.  26 dead in minutes through the use of a single weapon.  How is that not Mass Destruction?  And look at the impact...a nation further divided over yet another issue.  Talk of armed guards in schools, increased survelliance.

I'll be honest...I'm not sure where I'm going with this.  My original comment was just to point out the rather odd evolution of the term WMD from back in the day when I worked in the field and we were talking fusion bombs to now where it seems to include potato guns.


I will agree the definition has gotten murky.
 
2013-04-22 04:01:56 PM

Antimatter: StatelyGreekAutomaton: Also, sterilize your entire family or some shiat.

that's actually banned directly by the Constitution.  You don't punish anyone but the criminal in question.


Oh, so when you want to ignore the constitution it's cool, but the minute I suggest it "Oh lordy, lordy".

Geez. Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-04-22 04:06:06 PM

FlashHarry: the kid is guilty as hell, but justice must be served.


Yep, and yep. If we don't stick to the rule of law, what's the point of claiming that our nation has the rule of law?

He's an American citizen. He needs to be treated like one. We've tortured enough Americans this decade.
 
2013-04-22 04:07:03 PM

praxcelis: Uchiha_Cycliste: You are reiterating what you said before. And I agree it's one hell of a stretch, but let's work through the thought experiment. Do we deny society as a whole the public catharsis of a righteously (and poetically) administered asswhooping in order to strive for a utopia that is many generations out of our reach. Even at the cost of some innocents we will never hear about that will suffer the brunt of that absent catharsis?

Yes, we do deny it.  That was the point I was making.  We're supposed to be better than that.

Fantasize about bloody limb-beating all you like--I never said it was possible to eliminate our animal inside, it's what makes us human after all--but the moment you put that into practice you've demonstrated you're just as broken.


This I see, and it's why I created a scenario distinct from a pure revenge situation. By denying the public beating other innocent people will suffer. It's wacky and unrealistic, but it's the framework of the argument and scenario. I can see pure revenge as being detestable, I also feel that if the act of punishment results in a whole bunch of steam being blown off that would otherwise be turned towards those that don't deserve it, it's not something that should be dismissed out of hand. Convince me that a punishment restricted to incarceration is morally defensible even when it will result in unconnected actors will suffer instead to release that pressure.
 
2013-04-22 04:08:39 PM
 I got into a debate on facebook with a woman who didn't want to give him a trial.  What is wrong with people?   I told her it was un-American.  She said she wasn't un-American because her kid was in the Navy.  lulz
 
2013-04-22 04:09:51 PM

skullkrusher: keylock71: Think the best outcome this kid can hope for is Life Without Parole...

If he truly is guilty, then I want him to live the rest of his miserable life in prison and be reminded daily he is nothing more than a murderer and a coward.

and the fact that he's slight and pretty, you can probably add "biatch" to that list


What is it with you sick farks that you get off so hard on the idea of prison rape?
 
2013-04-22 04:11:39 PM

Purdue_Pete: He's accused of blowing up an sweet 8 year old boy, two beautiful young women and a cop.


Try not to weasel things up by playing Daily Mail with your sentences.
 
2013-04-22 04:12:03 PM

thurstonxhowell: Treygreen13: thurstonxhowell: Tell them that I'm not responsible for that? Sure thing, chief.

Ok. When Laylah Crawford of Cleveland grows up, email her. She's 5 now, but she'll be old enough one day. Tell her that the man who was paroled from a murder charge and then shot her mother and 4 of her family members in the head was not the fault of the justice system and there was nothing that could have been done to stop it.


[rubbercat.net image 120x120]

It really sounds like you've made your case. I mean, I must be the asshole here, what with not thinking of the children and all. Except for how you're a farking liar you farking asshole. Davon Crawford was in not way on parole for murder charges. Because he was never charged with murder. You made that up. It sounds real bad in your story based on real events. Speaking of those real events, why don't you go tell little Laylah how you felt so bad for her you chose to use her a prop to make other people feel bad?


Davon Crawford  plea bargained down to manslaughter after murdering someone. Then he shot at his wife who was holding their child. Not to mention trying to murder two police officers with a car two years prior.  The justice system failed him, and all of society, by letting a man who attempted to end 5 lives (and succeeded with one) out of prison so that he could kill 5 people and himself.
 
2013-04-22 04:12:16 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Convince me that a punishment restricted to incarceration is morally defensible even when it will result in unconnected actors will suffer instead to release that pressure.


Convince me that utilitarian arguments are the only valid moral arguments first, because otherwise the actions of others are their own moral issues independent of what society does to this individual.
 
2013-04-22 04:12:44 PM
pipe bombs are WMDs now?  Iraq really did have WMDs, everyone.  Bush was right!
 
2013-04-22 04:13:59 PM

Electrify: mass casualties


...

Three people died.

"Casualties" is a term that includes both death and injury.  It sometimes gets mistaken as meaning deaths in modern usage, but the true meaning is more along the lines of "people who can't help on the battlefield anymore."
 
2013-04-22 04:14:33 PM

Great Janitor: I would hope that everyone in the U.S. would be in more than a tizzy about Obama assuming dictatorial powers...


Alas, the issue will break along ideological/party lines.

I'm not happy about it either, but there it is.
 
2013-04-22 04:15:01 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Subby said he was a citizen (not a legal alien as I had thought), and I was wondering if that was really the case. Unless I'm wrong, and I well could be since IANAL, I was under the impression that citizens and non-citizens were treated differently in the law.


There are differences, like entering the country, voting, and 2 or 3 other things. But for the most part, the Constitution protects the rights of "persons," not "citizens." With respect to criminal prosecution, the only difference is that non-citizens can be deported.

 
2013-04-22 04:16:16 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: keylock71: Think the best outcome this kid can hope for is Life Without Parole...

If he truly is guilty, then I want him to live the rest of his miserable life in prison and be reminded daily he is nothing more than a murderer and a coward.

and the fact that he's slight and pretty, you can probably add "biatch" to that list

What is it with you sick farks that you get off so hard on the idea of prison rape?


I don't. We are talking about how miserable his life will be even if he is not executed. Rape is pretty miserable. What is it with you nimrods that you read shiat that isn't there?
 
2013-04-22 04:17:08 PM
Good he's standing trial.  Anything otherwise is cowardice on our parts.
 
2013-04-22 04:18:05 PM

Daedalus27: NostroZ: dallylamma: [farm4.static.flickr.com image 479x383]

And that's how young Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got to become cellmates with the man know to inmates and guards alike as Rape-Assaurus Rex. My my.

Why do we as American citizens tolerate RAPE in prison?
If there's a CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishment, it's to be PHYSICALLY RAPED while you're in the "custody of the government".

Seriously people.
Prison rape in the USA is a casual joke... about human rights abuse!!!

I would say we tolerate it not so much because most we want to (regardless of the callous comments), but rather because it is difficult and almost impossible to stop.  Prisoners do not typically bring a complaint about rape because that is against the norms of prisoners to cooperate with prison officials against other inmate.  Usually it results in an attempt on the life of the inmate for cooperation.  So the rapes occur and there is nothing that can be done (Wrong) because there is no cooperation with any investigation (assuming officials know something was going on). No one outside ignorant individuals in jest really wants crime to occur in prisons, it is just so darn hard to stop it because prisons are full of criminals who typically don't obey rules or cooperate with law enforcement to solve crimes.

TL:DR Rapes don't happen because snitches get stitches.


Wrong.  It is PREVENTABLE.
The US has had a culture of abuse in their prisons.  Even though it is the world's LARGEST prison system.
If we truly value human rights, prison rape would not be a joking matter.
 
2013-04-22 04:22:14 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Fusion bomb?  WMD
Home made bomb in a pressure cooker?  Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.


Saying any bomb is a WMD is ridiculous.

Is a hand grenade a "weapon of mass destruction?" If so, then obviously Saddam did have WMD after all.

And, if an improvised bomb is indeed a WMD, then shouldn't we track the explosive material that could be used for them - you know, like we do with ammonium nitrate?

Ammonium nitrate is good as a fertilizer and an explosive. Gunpowder is for bullets and explosives, so naturally we can't do any proactive regarding that.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/436-2nd-amendment-rights/170 46 -how-the-nra-impeded-the-boston-bomber-investigation
The inability to quickly track the gunpowders in the Boston bombs is due to government policy designed and promoted by the NRA, which has found a way to transform every massacre associated with weapons into an opportunity for the munitions companies that sustain it to sell more guns, gunpowder and bullets.

The price for such delays was put on terrible display Friday morning when the two brothers, who had been caught on video placing the bombs, killed one police officer, wounded another and carjacked a motorist, creating conditions so unsafe that the 7th largest population center in America spent Friday on lockdown.

But for the NRA-backed policy of not putting identifiers known as taggants in gunpowder, law enforcement could have quickly identified the explosives used to make the bombs, tracking them from manufacture to retail sale. That could well have saved the life of Sean Collier, the 26-year-old MIT police officer who was gunned down Thursday night by the fleeing bomb suspects.

If Tsarnaev had escaped on Friday, the NRA (and the GOP) would have been fine with him buying additional weapons without a background check. And if we didn't have numerous photos and videos to identify the bombers, they could very well be out and causing more death today, since there would have been no way to track the explosives they used..
 
2013-04-22 04:23:10 PM

CheatCommando: Uchiha_Cycliste: Convince me that a punishment restricted to incarceration is morally defensible even when it will result in unconnected actors will suffer instead to release that pressure.

Convince me that utilitarian arguments are the only valid moral arguments first, because otherwise the actions of others are their own moral issues independent of what society does to this individual.


this... is a good counter argument. One that I think was rattling around the back of my mind and refused to come forward. I'll need some time to see if I can further defend my scenario.
 
2013-04-22 04:24:03 PM
now lets break open that glow stick and pour it in homestarrunner's mountain dew.


\I hear they have to pump your stomach.
 
2013-04-22 04:25:04 PM

Silverstaff: The idea of just locking somebody up for a long time doesn't seem like much of a punishment though. They get food, and shelter, and medical care, and probably a TV and a gym too. They won't have to worry about losing their job and thus their home and health insurance, they won't have to worry about the cost of living or commuting to work. People want prison to be something to fear, to be scared of, and just going into a safe, clean, well built and orderly prison where there is no real risk of brutal violence seems. . .not much to fear at all compared to everyday life.

The idea of prison rape, that seems to add the "Karmic justice" factor. As a people, we would never officially sanction this, we'd never sentence people to be raped. . .but if some criminal gets brutalized by his fellow degenerates for being bad even by their standards (much like it's common knowledge that pedophiles get the worst treatment in prison), we feel better knowing justice was served. Jeffrey Dahmer eluded the death penalty for his cannibalistic serial-killer spree. . .so a fellow inmate killed him, and no tears were shed.


Right.
Prison Rape is a tool of fear to keep people in line.
Something like 200,000 a year and its only now slowly getting ANY voice to stop.
It's wrong. It's not what the justice system is supposed to represent.
It shows a disregard for that very justice that is supposed to be served when someone can be killed in prison and we say good.
 
2013-04-22 04:27:45 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Fusion bomb?  WMD
Home made bomb in a pressure cooker?  Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.


If the pressure cooker was made out of state, it falls under the interstate commerce clause according to the government.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/amish-prosecuted-because-scissors-crossed -s tate-lines/

Yes, this is how farking ridiculous our federal government is.
 
2013-04-22 04:27:48 PM

LordJiro: letrole: letrole: If you ever wonder why the motivations of the left are generally suspect in the minds of regular people in fly-over country, then have a look at this thread.
Correlation does not equal causation, I suppose, but it does seem that if you supported the dweebs in the failed Occupy-X movement, your are more likely to worry about the Miranda rights of bombers.

The Southern Dandy: I worry about Mirada rights of bombers, because if they can forgo Miranda rights of bombers, then they can forgo Miranda rights for me & you, because Miranda rights are something that applies BEFORE a person has been found guilty, so even though you might say "I'll never be a bomber", if the police are allowed to circumvent your constitutional rights, you just might end up as a convicted bomber, even though you're innocent.


Would you object to torture as an interrogation method if he revealed the location of another planted bomb with a hair trigger, but only after his left hand was crushed in a vice?

Yes.

/24 is not a farking documentary.
//Nobody buys the "it's a surname' bullshiat, troll.


Seriously. Isn't there a "bash homos" thread on Fark somewhere?.
 
2013-04-22 04:28:41 PM

NostroZ: Wrong. It is PREVENTABLE.
The US has had a culture of abuse in their prisons. Even though it is the world's LARGEST prison system.
If we truly value human rights, prison rape would not be a joking matter.


You say that as though criminals in this country were treated as anything better than human cattle by a system more interested in profiting in warehousing than trying to rehab those that are saveable.

Yes, there are quite a few people that deserve to be, at the very least, sent to a deserted island in the subartic where no ships ever go and left to their own devices. But our criminal justice system sends just as many young men and women to jail for minor crimes that really should be handled in a different fashion who come out institutionalized because by now they have no other skills than crime and the abuse just makes them that much less willing to follow the rules to get by when they find out that ex cons have very few options post-prison.

Of course, this is a country that has fallen into the ideology that the only way to stop bad behavior is to be spanked harder rather than spending the time and energy to figure out if it's a spanking that is needed or if the person doing the crime should be given alternatives.
 
2013-04-22 04:30:22 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: this... is a good counter argument. One that I think was rattling around the back of my mind and refused to come forward. I'll need some time to see if I can further defend my scenario.


heh. that's pretty interesting. i have an essay in my mind to write about how people who truly believe in science would let people pee in their sinks. I'll let you know when I'm done.
 
2013-04-22 04:30:32 PM
He's a US citizen, protected by the Constitution. End of story. He wasn't a combatant in the theater of war, he is accused of committing a single violent act of terrorism on the streets of Boston.

We start down the slippery slope of deciding citizens are not protected by the rule of law because the are accused of doing something especially heinous we open Pandora's box. When we start calling citizens "enemy combatants" we start to give up everything that the Bill of Rights were written for. It may seem harmless now, only using a reduced justice system on enemy combatants  or terrorists as we know them now, but it is not hard to see some future administration come in different or varied criteria as to what is a terrorist act and could possibly strip anyone who does not agree with the government of their due process rights.

As to the questioning without Miranda, all it means, at worse, is that prosecutors may be prevented from using whatever he may tell them when his trial starts.
 
2013-04-22 04:33:15 PM
Thanks, Obama.

No, really.
 
2013-04-22 04:36:47 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Where do we draw the line between civility and denying our more primal nature?
I'm honestly curious to hear what you think about this viewpoint.

Thomas Hobbes would like a word with you  r u, uncivilized ass.
FTFM

You know what, I thin kI'm gonna do my work and casually check in on fark instead of reading a several hundred year old tome that may or may not be relevant. Why don't you make an argument about why I'm wrong instead of directing me toward something that else.

Look at your question.
Since you asked it in the first damned place, I pointed you to a complete, clearly-delineated answer.
It's one of the basic documents at the very foundation of the Enlightenment,
/and you are in sore need of enlightenment.
//And Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but baby steps.

Well demonstrate to me you understand the argument and apply it to the situation to answer my question. If I wanted to be lazy I would just point the people talking about prison rape and punishment to Foucault's "birth of the prison" if I wanted top be helpful I'd incorporate his major points to make a cogent argument about America's rape culture.


To quote Hobbes, where he speaks of justice and the laws of nature:

A seventh is,  that in revenges, that is, retribution of evil for evil,  men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow. Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with any other design, than for correction of the offender, or direction of others. For this law is consequent to the next before it, that commandeth pardon, upon security of the future time. Besides, revenge without respect to the example, and profit to come, is a triumph, or glorying in the hurt of another, tending to no end; for the end is always somewhat to come; and glorying to no end, is vain-glory, and contrary to reason, and to hurt without reason, tendeth to the introduction of war; which is against the law of nature; and is commonly styled by the name of  cruelty.


And because all signs of hatred, or contempt, provoke to fight; insomuch as most men choose rather to hazard their life, than not to be revenged; we may in the eighth place, for a law of nature, set down this precept,  that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred, or contempt of another. The breach of which law, is commonly called  contumely.


/Now go and study.
 
2013-04-22 04:37:08 PM

JohnBigBootay: Uchiha_Cycliste: this... is a good counter argument. One that I think was rattling around the back of my mind and refused to come forward. I'll need some time to see if I can further defend my scenario.

heh. that's pretty interesting. i have an essay in my mind to write about how people who truly believe in science would let people pee in their sinks. I'll let you know when I'm done.


Heh, I think you would enjoy John FInnemore's souvenoir program and a skit involving Vegemite flavored toothpaste.

\just trust me on this one.
 
2013-04-22 04:37:12 PM

Bravo Two: NostroZ: Wrong. It is PREVENTABLE.
The US has had a culture of abuse in their prisons. Even though it is the world's LARGEST prison system.
If we truly value human rights, prison rape would not be a joking matter.

You say that as though criminals in this country were treated as anything better than human cattle by a system more interested in profiting in warehousing than trying to rehab those that are saveable.

Yes, there are quite a few people that deserve to be, at the very least, sent to a deserted island in the subartic where no ships ever go and left to their own devices. But our criminal justice system sends just as many young men and women to jail for minor crimes that really should be handled in a different fashion who come out institutionalized because by now they have no other skills than crime and the abuse just makes them that much less willing to follow the rules to get by when they find out that ex cons have very few options post-prison.

Of course, this is a country that has fallen into the ideology that the only way to stop bad behavior is to be spanked harder rather than spending the time and energy to figure out if it's a spanking that is needed or if the person doing the crime should be given alternatives.


The prison system is a modern outstretch of the slave labor concept.
Slaves in the past were usually losers of wars, or sold by their tribes, or couldn't pay their debts, etc. "outcasts / subservient in society"

The need for CHEAP LABOR has been the backbone of this country and prison is just a way for license plates to get made and now an expanding amount of other goods too.  Therefore, the prison system is too seductive to the way things get done in a capitalistic enterprise.

I would argue that in a lot of cases capitalism and Democracy are not compatible.
 
2013-04-22 04:38:08 PM

ManateeGag: HMS_Blinkin: He's a citizen?  I thought I read that he had a green card, and was a legal immigrant, but not a US citizen.

Or is that just CNN/NYPost being derpy again?

He took the oath in september.


If the oath of citizenship was taken with the intent of using the privileges of citizenship to aid in committing an act of terror on US soil, then wasn't the oath of citizenship taken fraudulently? And isn't the oath--and thus his citizenship--invalid on those grounds?
 
2013-04-22 04:39:44 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: LordJiro: letrole: letrole: If you ever wonder why the motivations of the left are generally suspect in the minds of regular people in fly-over country, then have a look at this thread.
Correlation does not equal causation, I suppose, but it does seem that if you supported the dweebs in the failed Occupy-X movement, your are more likely to worry about the Miranda rights of bombers.

The Southern Dandy: I worry about Mirada rights of bombers, because if they can forgo Miranda rights of bombers, then they can forgo Miranda rights for me & you, because Miranda rights are something that applies BEFORE a person has been found guilty, so even though you might say "I'll never be a bomber", if the police are allowed to circumvent your constitutional rights, you just might end up as a convicted bomber, even though you're innocent.


Would you object to torture as an interrogation method if he revealed the location of another planted bomb with a hair trigger, but only after his left hand was crushed in a vice?

Yes.

/24 is not a farking documentary.
//Nobody buys the "it's a surname' bullshiat, troll.

Seriously. Isn't there a "bash homos" thread on Fark somewhere?.


First, for me, it'd depend on the kind of bomb. If it was a nuke somewhere in NY? fark it. I'll hook up the goddamn testical clamps myself.

Secondly, this needs to be repeated because of retarded bullshiat that keeps coming up:

Miranda Rights are a colloquial term that encompasses all of the rights provided by the BoR to a person accused of a crime.  They always apply to citizens in the civilian justice system. Similar laws apply under the UCMJ, but I digress.

What the cops did not give to the bomber is a Miranda WARNING. This is basically reading the suspect a notification of what his rights are, not an invocation that grants that person his or her rights.

Just because the police were ordered not to tell the subject what his rights were (Since I presume they were holding off on charging him and shoving him into a criminal court vs. sending him to gitmo until they had more data on what his crimes and affiliations were, and in hopes that they could get him to talk before they lowered the hammer and got lawyers involved), does not mean that that invalidates or somehow removes the subject's rights under the law. At any time he could have retained an attorney, and at any time since first contact with a cop, he could have requested legal council, as his his right. He could at any time invoke his fifth amendment right to not incriminate himself and remain silent.

Whatever level of knowledge he had of his rights, they continued to apply.
 
2013-04-22 04:43:31 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Uchiha_Cycliste: Where do we draw the line between civility and denying our more primal nature?
I'm honestly curious to hear what you think about this viewpoint.

Thomas Hobbes would like a word with you  r u, uncivilized ass.
FTFM

You know what, I thin kI'm gonna do my work and casually check in on fark instead of reading a several hundred year old tome that may or may not be relevant. Why don't you make an argument about why I'm wrong instead of directing me toward something that else.

Look at your question.
Since you asked it in the first damned place, I pointed you to a complete, clearly-delineated answer.
It's one of the basic documents at the very foundation of the Enlightenment,
/and you are in sore need of enlightenment.
//And Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but baby steps.

Well demonstrate to me you understand the argument and apply it to the situation to answer my question. If I wanted to be lazy I would just point the people talking about prison rape and punishment to Foucault's "birth of the prison" if I wanted top be helpful I'd incorporate his major points to make a cogent argument about America's rape culture.

To quote Hobbes, where he speaks of justice and the laws of nature:

A seventh is,  that in revenges, that is, retribution of evil for evil,  men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow. Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with any other design, than for correction of the offender, or direction of others. For this law is consequent to the next before it, that commandeth pardon, upon security of the future time. Besides, revenge without respect to the example, and profit to come, is a triumph, or glorying in the hurt of another, tending to no end; for the end is always somewhat to come; and glorying to no end, is vain-glory, and contrary to reason, and to hurt without reason, tendeth to the introduction of war; which is against the law of nature; and is commonly styled by the name of  cruelty.


A ...


So on the first order, revenge results in vendettas that soon lose sight of their origin and become self sustaining.
On the second order, the capacity to recognize the revenge is not necessary but merely desirable is an important aspect of self-awareness where in the triumph of mans compassion over his baser instincts is all that keeps society stable.

OTOH, but shiat man! He REALLY deserves to get his ass-whooped.  tough call =/
 
2013-04-22 04:43:42 PM

Cybernetic: ManateeGag: HMS_Blinkin: He's a citizen?  I thought I read that he had a green card, and was a legal immigrant, but not a US citizen.

Or is that just CNN/NYPost being derpy again?

He took the oath in september.

If the oath of citizenship was taken with the intent of using the privileges of citizenship to aid in committing an act of terror on US soil, then wasn't the oath of citizenship taken fraudulently? And isn't the oath--and thus his citizenship--invalid on those grounds?


Sort of hard to prove that he took the oath of citizenship in order to use the privileges to aid in committing an act of terror, though. Especially considering the other conspirator succeeded in the attack without his citizenship.
 
2013-04-22 04:44:14 PM

damageddude: He's a US citizen, protected by the Constitution. End of story. He wasn't a combatant in the theater of war, he is accused of committing a single violent act of terrorism on the streets of Boston.

We start down the slippery slope of deciding citizens are not protected by the rule of law because the are accused of doing something especially heinous we open Pandora's box. When we start calling citizens "enemy combatants" we start to give up everything that the Bill of Rights were written for. It may seem harmless now, only using a reduced justice system on enemy combatants  or terrorists as we know them now, but it is not hard to see some future administration come in different or varied criteria as to what is a terrorist act and could possibly strip anyone who does not agree with the government of their due process rights.

As to the questioning without Miranda, all it means, at worse, is that prosecutors may be prevented from using whatever he may tell them when his trial starts.


You do realize that even during the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the rule of habeas corpus and all that for captured southerners and southern combatants, right?
 
2013-04-22 04:46:20 PM

HMS_Blinkin: He's a citizen?  I thought I read that he had a green card, and was a legal immigrant, but not a US citizen.

Or is that just CNN/NYPost being derpy again?


casventures.webstarts.com
 
2013-04-22 04:47:25 PM

Cybernetic: If the oath of citizenship was taken with the intent of using the privileges of citizenship to aid in committing an act of terror on US soil, then wasn't the oath of citizenship taken fraudulently? And isn't the oath--and thus his citizenship--invalid on those grounds?


Why would you even want that in the first place?
 
2013-04-22 04:49:53 PM

Bravo Two: damageddude:

You do realize that even during the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the rule of habeas corpus and all that for captured southerners and southern combatants, right?


Actually, he just suspended it for everybody.  Lots of folks got their butts thrown in prison with no charges on suspicion alone.  But, there was a pretty good war on at the tiem, IIRC.
 
2013-04-22 04:51:30 PM

Bravo Two: TheShavingofOccam123: LordJiro: letrole: letrole: If you ever wonder why the motivations of the left are generally suspect in the minds of regular people in fly-over country, then have a look at this thread.
Correlation does not equal causation, I suppose, but it does seem that if you supported the dweebs in the failed Occupy-X movement, your are more likely to worry about the Miranda rights of bombers.

The Southern Dandy: I worry about Mirada rights of bombers, because if they can forgo Miranda rights of bombers, then they can forgo Miranda rights for me & you, because Miranda rights are something that applies BEFORE a person has been found guilty, so even though you might say "I'll never be a bomber", if the police are allowed to circumvent your constitutional rights, you just might end up as a convicted bomber, even though you're innocent.


Would you object to torture as an interrogation method if he revealed the location of another planted bomb with a hair trigger, but only after his left hand was crushed in a vice?

Yes.

/24 is not a farking documentary.
//Nobody buys the "it's a surname' bullshiat, troll.

Seriously. Isn't there a "bash homos" thread on Fark somewhere?.

First, for me, it'd depend on the kind of bomb. If it was a nuke somewhere in NY? fark it. I'll hook up the goddamn testical clamps myself.

Secondly, this needs to be repeated because of retarded bullshiat that keeps coming up:

Miranda Rights are a colloquial term that encompasses all of the rights provided by the BoR to a person accused of a crime.  They always apply to citizens in the civilian justice system. Similar laws apply under the UCMJ, but I digress.

What the cops did not give to the bomber is a Miranda WARNING. This is basically reading the suspect a notification of what his rights are, not an invocation that grants that person his or her rights.

Just because the police were ordered not to tell the subject what his rights were (Since I presume they were holding off on chargin ...


by avoiding giving him the warning, they were implicitly guaranteeing him that nothing he said could be used to prosecute him. It is basically a protection in exchange for actionable information. You're right though, at any time he could have stopped talking and asked for a lawyer.
 
Displayed 50 of 492 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report