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  
•       •       •

11204 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 04:53:56 PM

skullkrusher: Eirik: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: Let's hope this is handled at the state level rather than the federal level.

There is quite literally zero chance of that happening.

I wouldn't say zero.  Couldn't the state choose to prosecute when the feds are done with him for state level crimes?  If he somehow is found not guilty of the fed charges, couldn't the state indict?  Even go through with it, just to have the sentence in place if he's ever given federal parole?  For example, the murder of the MIT police officer.  I suspect he won't be charged with that by the feds, but the state could if they so chose.

I'd imagine that MA could try him on charges in addition to the Fed charges but it certainly won't be in lieu of Fed charges. I am pretty sure double jeopardy would apply if he were first acquitted federally and then retried locally for the same crimes


Double jeopardy only applies within the same sovereignty. The Feds and the State of Massachusetts are different sovereignties, so double jeopardy does not apply. He could be charged with the same crime in both court systems and tried in both systems.

Practically, the Feds do not pursue charges against people acquitted in state court for the same charges, unless there are abnormalities during the trial (bribery of jury/court officials).
 
2013-04-22 04:54:00 PM

HMS_Blinkin: ManateeGag:He took the oath in september.

Ah, thank you.

Warlordtrooper: Does it matter? The military is not for things inside the us

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.  I'm not implying he ought to be given a military trial---the question was more a matter of what KIND of civilian trial should he get?  Since he's officially a citizen that negates the question anyway.


No we are not treated differently. I (a resident alien) am just as entitled to the protections afforded by the Constitution as you are.
 
2013-04-22 04:54:05 PM
I was a hard core patriot for 30 years, even did an honorable stint in the Marine Corps.  The last 14 years of government, however, have completely purged that from me.  From the black hole of Gitmo, to the Department of Fatherland, errr, Homeland Security, to warrantless wiretaps, to having an actual discussion about whether or not the President should be allowed to Kill List American citizens, and such a large section of the population actually believing in "the most transparent Presidency in history..."   well, I don't have much hope any more that we can pull out of this.  The people are too willfully and stubbornly ignorant and the government is too willing to cash in on that.

The concept of "America" is dead and gone.
 
2013-04-22 04:56:28 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: 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 =/


No. That is not justice:
On this law, dependeth another,  that at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. As it is necessary for all men that seek peace, to lay down certain rights of nature; that is to say, not to have liberty to do all they list: so is it necessary for man's life, to retain some; as right to govern their own bodies; enjoy air, water, motion, ways to go from place to place; and all things else, without which a man cannot live, or not live well. If in this case, at the making of peace, men require for themselves, that which they would not have to be granted to others, they do contrary to the precedent law, that commandeth the acknowledgment of natural equality, and therefore also against the law of nature.

/Plus, you know, that whole Amendment VIII thing.
 
2013-04-22 04:56:47 PM

Moopy Mac: skullkrusher: Eirik: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: Let's hope this is handled at the state level rather than the federal level.

There is quite literally zero chance of that happening.

I wouldn't say zero.  Couldn't the state choose to prosecute when the feds are done with him for state level crimes?  If he somehow is found not guilty of the fed charges, couldn't the state indict?  Even go through with it, just to have the sentence in place if he's ever given federal parole?  For example, the murder of the MIT police officer.  I suspect he won't be charged with that by the feds, but the state could if they so chose.

I'd imagine that MA could try him on charges in addition to the Fed charges but it certainly won't be in lieu of Fed charges. I am pretty sure double jeopardy would apply if he were first acquitted federally and then retried locally for the same crimes

Double jeopardy only applies within the same sovereignty. The Feds and the State of Massachusetts are different sovereignties, so double jeopardy does not apply. He could be charged with the same crime in both court systems and tried in both systems.

Practically, the Feds do not pursue charges against people acquitted in state court for the same charges, unless there are abnormalities during the trial (bribery of jury/court officials).


huh, TMYK.
 
2013-04-22 05:01:02 PM

Bravo Two: 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?


*AHEM*
Article I Section 9:  The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

There's no civil war and nobody has invaded*


/*since the Brits in the 60s.
 
2013-04-22 05:04:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Uchiha_Cycliste: 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 =/

No. That is not justice:
On this law, dependeth another,  that at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. As it is necessary for all men that seek peace, to lay down certain rights of nature; that is to say, not to have liberty to do all they list: so is it necessary for man's life, to retain some; as right to govern their own bodies; enjoy air, water, motion, ways to go from place to place; and all things else, without which a man cannot live, or not live well. If in this case, at the making of peace, men require for themselves, that which they would not have to be granted to others, they do contrary to the precedent law, that commandeth the acknowledgment of natural equality, and therefore also against the law of nature.

/Plus, you know, that whole Amendment VIII thing.


I do know that's not justice, that's pure good old fashioned revenge. Our humanity suppresses acting upon it. But to deny the desire for such actions is just silly.
 
2013-04-22 05:04:18 PM

rufus-t-firefly: If Tsarnaev had escaped on Friday, the NRA (and the GOP) would have been fine with him buying additional weapons without a background check.


They would have been free to do alot of things, with not being in custody and all.
If the DHS didn't put their names in a computer (names which it seems they didn't know for days, despite the patriot act) then they still could have bought guns with the feds blessing.

The downside of liberty is you give your fellow citizens a chance to hurt you.
The question is if you are willing to deny justice to everyone, deny rights to everyone, and enforce a permanent state of lockdown just to see that a handful of terror suspects might be caught.
Remembering that its possible to both lose your liberty and still get hurt.

In this most recent case, Homeland security was too busy snooping through their wives emails to notice a new threat at our feet.  It seems all those patriot act powers weren't needed to follow leads from the witnesses that actually directed cops to the bombers.
We gave up alot of money and privacy to get the same result as before 9/11.

They'll come with more suggestions for how to make us "safe", but we should be skeptical of seemingly easy solutions or obvious scapegoats.
They've got all the tools they need and then some.  This guy doesn't need some special trial when a normal one is plenty.
 
2013-04-22 05:04:28 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: No. That is not justice:
On this law, dependeth another, that at the entrance into conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. As it is necessary for all men that seek peace, to lay down certain rights of nature; that is to say, not to have liberty to do all they list: so is it necessary for man's life, to retain some; as right to govern their own bodies; enjoy air, water, motion, ways to go from place to place; and all things else, without which a man cannot live, or not live well. If in this case, at the making of peace, men require for themselves, that which they would not have to be granted to others, they do contrary to the precedent law, that commandeth the acknowledgment of natural equality, and therefore also against the law of nature.

/Plus, you know, that whole Amendment VIII thing.


Your jib is well cut.
 
2013-04-22 05:04:41 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Bravo Two: 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?

*AHEM*
Article I Section 9:  The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

There's no civil war and nobody has invaded*


/*since the Brits in the 60s.


Actually, it should be noted that while Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the Supreme Court said he was wrong for doing so. (Ex Parte Merryman)
 
2013-04-22 05:10:43 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Bravo Two: 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?

*AHEM*
Article I Section 9:  The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

There's no civil war and nobody has invaded*


/*since the Brits in the 60s.


Haven't you heard? Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says this is now the "homeland battlefield." Plus the bombers are fur'ners. Close enough, right?

/derp
 
2013-04-22 05:14:54 PM

ZAZ: A "destructive device" includes any bomb, grenade, rocket with more than four ounces of propellant, and any projectile launcher with a caliber over .50 inches (except for Attorney General approved shotguns). 18 USC 921.


Is the determination for shotguns by model or class, or is it an individual determination?  There are many millions of shotguns in circulation, and every common gauge other than .410 is over .50, so does every owner run the risk of a cop or prosecutor deciding his bird gun is a weapon of mass destruction?
 
2013-04-22 05:15:50 PM

ArcadianRefugee: 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.


really?
 
2013-04-22 05:27:20 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: SilentStrider: Good.

should done it with a grumpy cat =P


This is true.
 
2013-04-22 05:45:31 PM

Shrugging Atlas: ZAZ: Shrugging Atlas

Quoting my post from yesterday's thread:

For purposes of federal criminal law, a "weapon of mass destruction" includes any "destructive device." 18 USC 2332a. A "destructive device" includes any bomb, grenade, rocket with more than four ounces of propellant, and any projectile launcher with a caliber over .50 inches (except for Attorney General approved shotguns). 18 USC 921. A potato gun is a weapon of mass destruction, if "designed for use as a weapon" and used against a U.S. national.

Ah, thanks for the knowledge.  Sweet christ that's a pretty wide open definition.


That's what I've been thinking.  So we consider a couple of pressure cookers filled with nails to be on the same level as a goddamned nuclear bomb? How does that even work?  I had to look it up because I thought my co-worker was crazy when she said any bomb falls under "weapon of mass destruction"
 
2013-04-22 05:47:07 PM

Kibbler: A dozen rightwing pundits and countless rightwing bloggers just fell to their knees and thanked the Lord, for now they have something to rage about for the next five years.


Fun. Projection.

Liberals are angry they simply couldn't use a drone strike and avoid the trial completely.

Fun stuff.
 
2013-04-22 05:50:23 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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.


Like holding (most?) elected offices, thereby giving Sheriff Joe, Oily Taintz, and an untold number of less high-profile nutbags something to keep them busy for the past four years or so.
 
2013-04-22 06:04:20 PM

Cream of Meat: FlashHarry: plus, he'll likely get the DP if he's convicted on federal charges, yes?

He'll get the DP in prison too.


It's more likely that he'll end up in a supermax prison with zero contact with the other inmates and only minimal contact with prison personnel.
 
2013-04-22 06:11:15 PM

MyRandomName: Kibbler: A dozen rightwing pundits and countless rightwing bloggers just fell to their knees and thanked the Lord, for now they have something to rage about for the next five years.

Fun. Projection.

Liberals are angry they simply couldn't use a drone strike and avoid the trial completely.

Fun stuff.


If you'd extract your head from your colon, you'd realize that liberals are the biggest and most consistent critics of Obama's drone strikes. But then, you wouldn't be a Republican.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-22 06:11:24 PM
fnordfocus

The only precedent I can find deals with transfer tax and manufacturing licenses. There is a $200 tax to transfer a scary weapon as opposed to a normal weapon. The mess at Waco 20 years ago started when ATF suspected somebody hadn't paid the tax.

Apparently the ATF will, in response to an application to transfer, manufacture, or import, determine whether a weapon is a destructive device. I hope a determination that a shotgun is not a destructive device, i.e. has a sport use, benefits users of the shotgun.

The ATF has determined that shotguns with a pistol grip or with large magazines are "destructive devices", so shooting somebody with one of those is considered use of a weapon of mass destruction.
 
2013-04-22 06:22:06 PM
I totally agree with trying the accused in a court of law as a citizen.  I am amused at the differences of opinions on life or DP in this thread.  Personally I believe in the Death Penalty but not in the sheer amount of time one on death row can languish there.  If it takes 28 years (4 appeals @ 7 yrs each) to die on death row than it is NOT producing any fear that would cause a reduction in the actions that warrent a death penalty.  On the other hand, Life in prison is a waste of yours and mine tax dollars.

And before everyone explodes with these statements, my point is that every criminal in jail has more rights and privileges than your average citizenry.  Where else can you get three square meals a day, a roof over your head, free medical and dental, free education, and possibly free cable?  The average Joe that is at or below poverty level may not know where their next meal is coming, will most likely not have medical or dental even if they are working, and there living conditions would be below that of a prisoner.  And to think that we are building more prisons all the time.

I would rather the expense of one lethal injection than footing the bill for him for 60+ years, cheaper in the long run.
 
2013-04-22 06:29:41 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Well, my point was the term WMD which harkens from the Cold War used to only apply to Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical Weapons.  The term seems to have expanded quite a bit since back in the day to now include pressure cooker bombs.

But to your point, that the number of injured or killed dictates mass destruction.  Be careful with that kind of stupidity.  The cretin in Aurora killed 12 and wounded 50 something with a gun, all on his own.  Are guns now WMDs?


Exactly. It's interesting how the rhetoric is so different, isn't it?

We should be rightly skeptical of how a pressure cooker bomb has been called "weapon of mass destruction" in the modern law.  The term originated as a term for unconventional weapon that can take out a city, that even "civilized" armies aren't supposed to blithely use in a full on war.

What if these guys had decided to pick off runners at the finish line (or the crowds, or both) with machine guns?  What if the Aurora murderer had put pressure cooker bombs in the theater?

This guy has at least 4 counts of premeditated murder on his hands.  Not only that, but all the maiming, plus the whole "extreme indifference to life" part that comes when you use a bomb or set fires.  That's more than enough to put him away, in regular court.
 
2013-04-22 06:32:55 PM

World Traveling Navy Vet: I totally agree with trying the accused in a court of law as a citizen.  I am amused at the differences of opinions on life or DP in this thread.  Personally I believe in the Death Penalty but not in the sheer amount of time one on death row can languish there.  If it takes 28 years (4 appeals @ 7 yrs each) to die on death row than it is NOT producing any fear that would cause a reduction in the actions that warrent a death penalty.  On the other hand, Life in prison is a waste of yours and mine tax dollars.

And before everyone explodes with these statements, my point is that every criminal in jail has more rights and privileges than your average citizenry.  Where else can you get three square meals a day, a roof over your head, free medical and dental, free education, and possibly free cable?  The average Joe that is at or below poverty level may not know where their next meal is coming, will most likely not have medical or dental even if they are working, and there living conditions would be below that of a prisoner.  And to think that we are building more prisons all the time.

I would rather the expense of one lethal injection than footing the bill for him for 60+ years, cheaper in the long run.


The problem is our system works, where law enforce and prosecutors are rewarded for convictions, rather than justice.  That creates an incentive for the prosecution to lie, cheat, whatever it takes to convict.  Resulting in innocent people being executed.

If you're one of those that think you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, then I invite you to volunteer to be executed to show the rest of us that one innocent person's life, wrongly taken from them, is worth the money saved by a quick execution of the death penalty.
 
2013-04-22 06:33:43 PM
The problem is how* our system works...
 
2013-04-22 06:36:56 PM

The Southern Dandy: World Traveling Navy Vet: I totally agree with trying the accused in a court of law as a citizen.  I am amused at the differences of opinions on life or DP in this thread.  Personally I believe in the Death Penalty but not in the sheer amount of time one on death row can languish there.  If it takes 28 years (4 appeals @ 7 yrs each) to die on death row than it is NOT producing any fear that would cause a reduction in the actions that warrent a death penalty.  On the other hand, Life in prison is a waste of yours and mine tax dollars.

And before everyone explodes with these statements, my point is that every criminal in jail has more rights and privileges than your average citizenry.  Where else can you get three square meals a day, a roof over your head, free medical and dental, free education, and possibly free cable?  The average Joe that is at or below poverty level may not know where their next meal is coming, will most likely not have medical or dental even if they are working, and there living conditions would be below that of a prisoner.  And to think that we are building more prisons all the time.

I would rather the expense of one lethal injection than footing the bill for him for 60+ years, cheaper in the long run.

The problem is our system works, where law enforce and prosecutors are rewarded for convictions, rather than justice.  That creates an incentive for the prosecution to lie, cheat, whatever it takes to convict.  Resulting in innocent people being executed.

If you're one of those that think you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, then I invite you to volunteer to be executed to show the rest of us that one innocent person's life, wrongly taken from them, is worth the money saved by a quick execution of the death penalty.



Literally the only entity on your side in a trial is the defense council.  Sounds more obvious than it is.  The prosecution, judge, state, police, etc... are there for one reason and it is not to determine truth.
 
2013-04-22 06:39:14 PM

detritus: 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.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-22 06:44:29 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: detritus: 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.

[i.imgur.com image 640x359]


BRB, I'm consulting LOTUS
 
2013-04-22 06:45:23 PM

BafflerMeal: are there for one reason and it is not to determine truth.


You got that right. I learned that at a civil trial from my own attorney who informed me, 'look, what really happened here isn't the point - it's what we can document'. Because what really happened was kind of important to me at the time and I was the guy writing the checks.
 
2013-04-22 06:46:55 PM
Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen, and we dropped a couple drone bombs on his ass!!
 
2013-04-22 06:50:52 PM

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


Sorry, had to run some errands.

I can't disagree with your statement. I don't think he should be given a puppy and told that it's going to be OK. I believe in the death penalty and I believe that once he's convicted, he should recieve that sentence.
It is difficult to look past emotion and deal with logic. It is something that has to be learned and isn't taught. But if we are supposed to be enlightened human beings in the 21st century, then we souldn't be acting like the apes around the monolith. I know that's not realistic, and we are much closer to the apes around the monolith now more than ever, but if people like Xiphoid don't point out a better way then those who are screwing up won't know they are screwing up and won't have an idea on how to change.
Yes, the people who deny this even happened at all other than as a staged play to take away our guns (yes, people are spreading that shiat already) aren't likely to be swayed from their views. But to stand by idly and not call bullshiat the really whacked out stuff is irresponsible at best.  I'm not saying that there isn't a larger terrorist connection, as we are still on just the first few pages of this story.
 
2013-04-22 06:52:39 PM

JohnBigBootay: 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?


Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant. If the government can show reasonable evidence that citizenship was obtained under false pretenses, then strip his citizenship, which again makes him a foreign national, and dump him in Guantanamo and let the military interrogators have a go at him before his tribunal.

Anyone who prefers he be tried in U.S. civilian courts will obviously have a different opinion.
 
2013-04-22 06:53:57 PM

World Traveling Navy Vet: I would rather the expense of one lethal injection than footing the bill for him for 60+ years, cheaper in the long run.


You've just monetized a human life.  Tell me, how does that make you feel?

And once his life has been extinguished, what has changed?  His death doesn't heal the injured, counsel the stricken.  The only difference in the world is that we've lowered ourselves to the level of those we condemn, and given in to the atavistic need to inflict harm for the sake of harm done.  Let's be better than killer apes.

Again, the most we should do is heal his broken mind so that for the rest of his days he can contemplate fully the enormity of what he's done, in the solitude of concrete and steel.
 
2013-04-22 06:56:24 PM

Cybernetic: JohnBigBootay: 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?

Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant. If the government can show reasonable evidence that citizenship was obtained under false pretenses, then strip his citizenship, which again makes him a foreign national, and dump him in Guantanamo and let the military interrogators have a go at him before his tribunal.

Anyone who prefers he be tried in U.S. civilian courts will obviously have a different opinion.


The Constitution still applies to non-citizens
 
2013-04-22 06:56:31 PM

docilej: Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen, and we dropped a couple drone bombs on his ass!!


He was a little hard to get a hold of.
 
2013-04-22 06:59:10 PM

The Southern Dandy: The problem is how* our system works...


This ^^^^^

From a wikipedia on incarceration at year end of 2010 there were 2,266,800 inmates between federal and state penitentiaries.  At a quick look at annual costs per inmates in Iowa ($34,758), Texas ($21,390), and North Carolina ($27,747) and lets make an assumption of about $30,000 per inmate per annum across the US then we are looking at about $68B per annum of our tax dollars wasted IMHO.  We could better use that to fund schools, fix infastructure, etc.

The problem is how the system works and there is no easy solution to fix it.
 
2013-04-22 07:00:15 PM

Cybernetic: Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant.


But he wasn't an enemy combatant. The dude moved here when he was like seven or eight years old. He was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil and he should be tried as such. I mean we could do what you suggest but it would be rather pointless considering the mountains of evidence they have. he's going to be found guilty and after his sentencing never see the light of day again. All the rest of it is just emotional horseshiat that serves no constructive purpose.
 
2013-04-22 07:02:05 PM

FarkedOver: Let's hope this is handled at the state level rather than the federal level.


It is already at the federal level, the charges were laid about by the federal prosecutor not the state or county attorney.
 
2013-04-22 07:03:39 PM

ManRay: TheShavingofOccam123: 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.

Yeah. The idea of a "special terrorism interrogator" getting to him before he is officially questioned bothers me. You can't put due process on hold.


This has probably been mentioned but that is due process.  They invoked the public safety exception, which can be done in any case authorities feel is warranted.  They can do it to your granny when she gets hit with her latest DUI.
Further, Mirandizing is not required in any arrest.  His rights are still in intact but anything he my have said cannot be used in the court case.  They only use this when they know it is a slam dunk anyway, so they don't care about getting inadmissible statements. It is allperfectly legal and has been that way for a long time.
 
2013-04-22 07:09:30 PM

Cybernetic: JohnBigBootay: 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?

Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant. If the government can show reasonable evidence that citizenship was obtained under false pretenses, then strip his citizenship, which again makes him a foreign national, and dump him in Guantanamo and let the military interrogators have a go at him before his tribunal.

Anyone who prefers he be tried in U.S. civilian courts will obviously have a different opinion.


Before you go messing around with taking away citizenship you should probably have some evidence. We are supposed to represent the good guys. He is a citizen of this country and his rights should only be affected with due process. Do you honestly think he'll walk?

Take away his citizenship then what do you have? A legal resident of the US charged with a crime and taken to an offsite prison for interrogation? What stops the government from taking away your citizenship if you do something un-citizenly?

If we are going to claim to be the good guys, then we should practice that approach. Afford him his day in court, upon conviction and exhaustion of appeals, then maybe you revoke citizenship, or maybe you don't.
 
2013-04-22 07:13:26 PM
The real tragedy here is that the Obama administration isn't doing anything arguably stupid or evil in this matter that I can pitch a huge hissy-fit about.
Guess I'll get drunk and listen to Glenn and Rush until I feel better.
 
2013-04-22 07:21:02 PM

World Traveling Navy Vet: The Southern Dandy: The problem is how* our system works...

This ^^^^^

From a wikipedia on incarceration at year end of 2010 there were 2,266,800 inmates between federal and state penitentiaries.  At a quick look at annual costs per inmates in Iowa ($34,758), Texas ($21,390), and North Carolina ($27,747) and lets make an assumption of about $30,000 per inmate per annum across the US then we are looking at about $68B per annum of our tax dollars wasted IMHO.  We could better use that to fund schools, fix infastructure, etc.

The problem is how the system works and there is no easy solution to fix it.


You sure you don't want to take up that offer to show us how taking an innocent life is worth all the money we'd save?  Because life is cheap, and money is valuable, and you're just the person to show us that.
 
2013-04-22 07:28:05 PM

World Traveling Navy Vet: Where else can you get three square meals a day, a roof over your head, free medical and dental, free education, and possibly free cable?


*AHEM*
I'll give you a hint: Your fark handle.
 
2013-04-22 07:31:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: World Traveling Navy Vet: Where else can you get three square meals a day, a roof over your head, free medical and dental, free education, and possibly free cable?

*AHEM*
I'll give you a hint: Your fark handle.


You forgot the free PMITA
 
2013-04-22 07:32:53 PM

World Traveling Navy Vet: The Southern Dandy: The problem is how* our system works...

This ^^^^^

From a wikipedia on incarceration at year end of 2010 there were 2,266,800 inmates between federal and state penitentiaries.  At a quick look at annual costs per inmates in Iowa ($34,758), Texas ($21,390), and North Carolina ($27,747) and lets make an assumption of about $30,000 per inmate per annum across the US then we are looking at about $68B per annum of our tax dollars wasted IMHO.  We could better use that to fund schools, fix infastructure, etc.

The problem is how the system works and there is no easy solution to fix it.


It's amazing how out laws are actually not terribly dissimilar from a country like Australia, nor is the culture, and yet they somehow manage to have much lower incarceration rates.
 
2013-04-22 07:33:12 PM

JohnBigBootay: Cybernetic: Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant.

But he wasn't an enemy combatant. The dude moved here when he was like seven or eight years old. He was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil and he should be tried as such. I mean we could do what you suggest but it would be rather pointless considering the mountains of evidence they have. he's going to be found guilty and after his sentencing never see the light of day again. All the rest of it is just emotional horseshiat that serves no constructive purpose.


I guess that depends on how you define "enemy combatant". There absolutely are segments of radical Islam that consider themselves to be at war with the United States. Should the fact that those people are not tied to a specific geopolitical entity upon which the United States can declare war determine whether or not they are enemy combatants? Or should it instead cause us to realize that the nature of modern conflict has evolved in part away from conflict between nation-states, and therefore reevaluate the definition of what causes a person to be recognized as a combatant?

Had the Boston bombing been perpetrated by agents of a foreign nation, it would be an act of war. Period. There would be no discussion or debate.

Instead, the bombings were carried out by agents of an ideology that considers itself at war with the United States. IMHO (and others will disagree) that makes the bombing an act of war, and the perpetrators enemy combatants.

This is certainly not "emotional horseshiat". This is recognizing a situation for what it is, and responding accordingly.
 
2013-04-22 07:46:38 PM

Cybernetic: JohnBigBootay: Cybernetic: Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant.

But he wasn't an enemy combatant. The dude moved here when he was like seven or eight years old. He was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil and he should be tried as such. I mean we could do what you suggest but it would be rather pointless considering the mountains of evidence they have. he's going to be found guilty and after his sentencing never see the light of day again. All the rest of it is just emotional horseshiat that serves no constructive purpose.

I guess that depends on how you define "enemy combatant". There absolutely are segments of radical Islam that consider themselves to be at war with the United States. Should the fact that those people are not tied to a specific geopolitical entity upon which the United States can declare war determine whether or not they are enemy combatants? Or should it instead cause us to realize that the nature of modern conflict has evolved in part away from conflict between nation-states, and therefore reevaluate the definition of what causes a person to be recognized as a combatant?

Had the Boston bombing been perpetrated by agents of a foreign nation, it would be an act of war. Period.


Would it?  It depends on whether the agents were acting in the agency of a foreign power, or if they were acting on their own.  For example, what if a foreign diplomat was just trying to kill his wife's lover who he knew to be at the race, and he wanted to do it with a bomb.  Is that an act of war?   Or a murder?
 
2013-04-22 07:49:37 PM

Kibbler: A dozen rightwing pundits and countless rightwing bloggers just fell to their knees and thanked the Lord, for now they have something to rage about for the next five years.


At least everyone else can find comfort in knowing you are a dick.
 
2013-04-22 07:57:51 PM

king_nacho: Cybernetic: JohnBigBootay: 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?

Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant. If the government can show reasonable evidence that citizenship was obtained under false pretenses, then strip his citizenship, which again makes him a foreign national, and dump him in Guantanamo and let the military interrogators have a go at him before his tribunal.

Anyone who prefers he be tried in U.S. civilian courts will obviously have a different opinion.

Before you go messing around with taking away citizenship you should probably have some evidence. We are supposed to represent the good guys. He is a citizen of this country and his rights should only be affected with due process. Do you honestly think he'll walk?

Take away his citizenship then what do you have? A legal resident of the US charged with a crime and taken to an offsite prison for interrogation? What stops the government from taking away your citizenship if you do something un-citizenly?

If we are going to claim to be the good guys, then we should practice that approach. Afford him his day in court, upon conviction and exhaustion of appeals, then maybe you revoke citizenship, or maybe you don't.


No, I don't think he'll walk. If he's tried in civilian courts, he will likely get the same treatment that McVeigh got--confinement in Supermax until he gets the needle. And if that happens, I'll be fine with it, as far as it goes.

But I believe that the desire to treat him as a common criminal betrays a certain fuzziness of thinking--an inability or unwillingness to recognize the situation in which we find ourselves. This same fuzziness of thinking dominated after the 1993 WTC bombing, and led to six convictions and a threat that continued to grow until we got attacked again eight years later.

There are people who consider themselves to be at war with the United States, acting on behalf of a stateless ideological and political entity that will continue to carry out attacks like this at any opportunity. History has shown convincingly that treating those who act on behalf of that entity as criminals rather than enemy combatants is folly.
 
2013-04-22 07:59:45 PM
It's depressing how eager much of the population has gotten when it comes to revoking rights they don't like, and the rights of people they don't like. And politicians are happy to indulge them. After all, who would want more restrictions on their personal power, when they could just be efficient and get shiat done and not have to worry about distractions like getting prosecuted?

And, every 4 to 8 years, rather than undoing the abuses of the previous Administration, the new Administration simply grabs the baton and continues the race towards ever greater government power.
 
2013-04-22 08:01:32 PM

The Southern Dandy: Cybernetic: JohnBigBootay: Cybernetic: Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant.

But he wasn't an enemy combatant. The dude moved here when he was like seven or eight years old. He was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil and he should be tried as such. I mean we could do what you suggest but it would be rather pointless considering the mountains of evidence they have. he's going to be found guilty and after his sentencing never see the light of day again. All the rest of it is just emotional horseshiat that serves no constructive purpose.

I guess that depends on how you define "enemy combatant". There absolutely are segments of radical Islam that consider themselves to be at war with the United States. Should the fact that those people are not tied to a specific geopolitical entity upon which the United States can declare war determine whether or not they are enemy combatants? Or should it instead cause us to realize that the nature of modern conflict has evolved in part away from conflict between nation-states, and therefore reevaluate the definition of what causes a person to be recognized as a combatant?

Had the Boston bombing been perpetrated by agents of a foreign nation, it would be an act of war. Period.

Would it?  It depends on whether the agents were acting in the agency of a foreign power, or if they were acting on their own.  For example, what if a foreign diplomat was just trying to kill his wife's lover who he knew to be at the race, and he wanted to do it with a bomb.  Is that an act of war?   Or a murder?


Are you suggesting that the Tsarnaev brothers were just trying to kill Tamerlan's wife? Do you really think that their motive was anything other that political or ideological?
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report