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)   So, apparently, the FBI ignored multiple requests from Boston bomber Tsarnaev for a lawyer during his interrogation   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 322
    More: Asinine, FBI, interrogations, Mirandize, multiples, citizen's arrests, fundamental rights  
•       •       •

13388 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2013 at 7:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 08:17:48 PM  

ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?


Mostly it's people who are rooting for the values that Americans claim to live by vs people who don't trust those values to keep them safe.
 
2013-04-29 08:18:53 PM  

BullBearMS: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 624x265]


Out of commission since 1862 when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

P.S. - Nobody noticed it has been missing for the past 150 years.
 
2013-04-29 08:22:20 PM  

Tatsuma: uld you know that? The FBI didn't know but Mighty Weaver had figured everything out?

Weaver95: so you are saying that the curfew was lifted AND there was still this massive level of threat to the public? again this does not make sense.

The curfew was lifted because they knew they weren't actively out there, that doesn't mean there weren't other bombs elsewhere. What were they gonna say: 'All of America, curfew!'


There are conspiracy theorists out there who think this was a false flag in order to establish martial-law-lite and see how citizens reacted so that one day they can put the entire country on lockdown once we're used to it.

/derpx2
 
2013-04-29 08:24:25 PM  

ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?


Maybe you don't get that people want the rule of law adhered to. It's not about protecting this guy, it's about protecting potential innocent people from mouth-breathing lynch mobs who like to knee-jerk into a guilty verdict.

But go ahead and miss that point completely and keep thinking people like to see 8 year olds blown up.
 
2013-04-29 08:24:43 PM  
This, likely, waters down The G's case, even with the pictures of him being placed at the scene and everything else.

Probably gets the needle out of his arm in a plea deal now, even with killing a cop.  The kid is now probably looking at Supermax for life.
 
2013-04-29 08:25:18 PM  
You have the right to remain silent, so shut the fark up, okay? You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, we'll provide you with the dumbest farking lawyer on earth. If you get Johnny Cochrane, I'll kill ya!
 
2013-04-29 08:25:35 PM  

Tatsuma: Weaver95: would YOU want to take that sort of risk? there was plenty of time to do this one by the numbers. they should have gotten him a lawyer.

No, they didn't have time:

1. He was in critical condition; and, more importantly
2. They didn't know if there were other devices about to explode

When they ascertained he wasn't going to die and that was it, he was mirandized and they let get a lawyer and stay silent.


I'd call you an asshole for that bullshiat counter-argument but then you'd just default to calling me an anti-semite and go running to the mods like you usually do.
 
2013-04-29 08:26:32 PM  

Tatsuma: .... no he doesn't, the government gave him those lawyers and they've declared that that was it. Not sure why, but they've done so in the past.


I've fired a court appointed attorney and was given a more competent public defender. The first attorney wanted me to plead guilty to everything, and I said "no, go make a plea bargain". He said he wouldn't so I said I was going to go to the DA and crack my own deal. He said I couldn't do that, and I asked him, "do you want to watch me walk down to the DA's office and do it?"

They assigned me a new lawyer, a good lawyer, who happened to be Jewish, if it matters.
 
2013-04-29 08:26:58 PM  

gblive: The question here is what is a legitimate period of time for "public safety exception"


Let's turn to the Supreme Court ruling that created it.

In the 1984 case New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court carved out the public safety exception for a man suspected of rape. The victim said her assailant had a gun, and he was wearing an empty holster. So the police asked him where the gun was before reading him his Miranda rights. That exception was allowable, the court said, because of the immediate threat that the gun posed.

So the "public safety exception" involved asking one question about an immediate danger.

What the Obama administration wants is multiple days of interrogation, despite the fact that the Boston officials had long since publicly declared the immediate danger to be over when they told everyone they were now free to go about their business.

Make no mistake, the decision to strip away Constitutional rights had nothing whatsoever to do with anything happening in Boston. An FBI memo covering this change of policy leaked to the press over a year ago.

there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.

See the difference? The public safety exception was extremely limited and had to do with an immediate threat. The decision from the Obama administration to strip away yet more Constitutional rights had nothing to do with an immediate threat.  That was simply the excuse they used.
 
2013-04-29 08:28:33 PM  

El_Perro: So, he knew enough about his rights to demand a lawyer, but didn't know that he could remain silent (see the other stories floating around that he stopped talking once he was given his Miranda warnings)? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


it does if

Boston Bombing :: Miranda rights
as
Sandy Hook :: Second amendment
and
9/11 :: Fourth Amendment
 
2013-04-29 08:30:16 PM  

Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.


Not sure if anyone has LOL'd at you yet, but that's not gonna happen. All this means is that, at best, anything he may have said may not be used against him. Presumably, they have enough to put him to death or put him away for life.
 
2013-04-29 08:30:21 PM  

Theaetetus: gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.

That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?


This isn't even a true representation of what is going on.

In the court case that established the "public safety exception" they did indeed use the information gained before the suspect was read his rights to convict him.
 
2013-04-29 08:33:46 PM  
It seems to me he needs to be treated as any treasonous spy or saboteur with potential knowledge of future attacks on the people of the United States. There aught to be some Cold War or World War 2 precedent that would be helpful.

If we insist on treating him like an ordinary criminal, I imagine that there's plenty of evidence outside the interrogation in question that would put him on the (federal) gallows.
 
2013-04-29 08:37:32 PM  

smitty04: [cdn.theatlanticwire.com image 614x383]
Russian solution for terrorism.


Early this morning, Russian forces in the region of Dagestan, in what looks to be part of a post-Boston crackdown on their own homegrown militants. At least five have been killed around the country for having suspected ties to Islamic militant groups.


You know what.....I like these stupid arguments we're having better.
 
2013-04-29 08:37:41 PM  

Tatsuma: CigaretteSmokingMan: Yes he does.

.... no he doesn't, the government gave him those lawyers and they've declared that that was it. Not sure why, but they've done so in the past.

Weaver95: i'm gonna disagree with you there - the cops had little reason to believe there was additional devices that might cause a threat. the city was in lock down after all, and everyone was at home. damage (if any) would have been minimal. the cops had time to play it straight and didn't. what that means to the prosecution, I don't know...probably nothing, since I think we're gonna throw our rulebook out on this one.

That is downright wrong, by the time he was in the hospital, the curfew had already been lifted, and we don't know where they could have planted or dropped bombs. They could have mailed some for all they knew.


An accused has the right to instruct the counsel of their choice. If you're right, it is the first I've heard of it and would mean that a central tenet in the criminal justice has been revoked.
 
2013-04-29 08:38:15 PM  

banandar123: Tatsuma: uld you know that? The FBI didn't know but Mighty Weaver had figured everything out?

Weaver95: so you are saying that the curfew was lifted AND there was still this massive level of threat to the public? again this does not make sense.

The curfew was lifted because they knew they weren't actively out there, that doesn't mean there weren't other bombs elsewhere. What were they gonna say: 'All of America, curfew!'

There are conspiracy theorists out there who think this was a false flag in order to establish martial-law-lite and see how citizens reacted so that one day they can put the entire country on lockdown once we're used to it.

/derpx2


I think that conspiracy theory is rubbish, but it is interesting to see how many media flapping heads were eager to make Obama's political enemies into enemies of the state. Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews blamed tea party anti-tax activists right out of the gate. If the Reichstag ever needs to be burned, those two f*ckers (and others) would happily light the match.

I'm not equating Obama with Hitler, that's absurd- but I can see how Hitler was able to staff up his power base.
 
2013-04-29 08:38:30 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: From the Miranda decision:

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed.  The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner. AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't thrown out the Miranda decision... yet. They might be chipping away at the edges of it, but they haven't overturned it yet (and the "public  safety" exception is one of the biggest whacks at the Miranda decision, one the Court should have attached a "reasonable time limit" clause to. Then again, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito aren't the biggest fans of the 5th Amendment).
 
2013-04-29 08:42:03 PM  

ClavellBCMI: BarkingUnicorn: From the Miranda decision:

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed.  The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. AFAIK, the SCOTUS hasn't thrown out the Miranda decision... yet. They might be chipping away at the edges of it, but they haven't overturned it yet (and the "public  safety" exception is one of the biggest whacks at the Miranda decision, one the Court should have attached a "reasonable time limit" clause to. Then again, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito aren't the biggest fans of the 5th Amendment).


It's funny how we've been saying this over and over since Tsarnaev was caught and the DoJ said they weren't Mirandizing him immediately--and yet we're still having to say this.

It is APPALLING how much TV and movie myth has overthrown the public perception of the legal system. Next we'll be hearing that Tsarnaev has to be released because he didn't get the one phone call he was entitled to, or some other "technicality" Hollywood has used over the decades to get criminals onto the street so Charles Bronson could righteously gun them down.
 
2013-04-29 08:43:38 PM  

401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.


That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki:  if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.
 
2013-04-29 08:44:09 PM  

ClavellBCMI: No, your case is not dismissed. The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.


Again, this is not the least bit true. In the Supreme Court case establishing the "public safety exception" the information gained before the miranda rights were read were used to convict.

Bear in mind this was another one of those decisions handed down by five conservative justices and opposed by every single liberal justice.
 
2013-04-29 08:45:10 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It would be awesome if this guy was released on a technicality because there is nowhere on this planet that he could go and be safe.


Other than Chechnya.
 
2013-04-29 08:45:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.


Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

We do not have to destroy the village to save it.
 
2013-04-29 08:45:54 PM  

Tatsuma: The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.


No. If you open your mouth and say something before you are charged, it CAN be used against you in court.
 
2013-04-29 08:46:33 PM  

doglover: What's the point of rights if they can be taken away willy nilly without consequences?


There are exigent circumstance exceptions in many areas of the law.  But if you want consequences, the court can prevent the prosecutor from using his statements against him in court,
 
2013-04-29 08:47:51 PM  
even if he gets out on a technicality, a retard with a gun will offer a solution...

or, he escapes to farkistan... either where the Russians don't like that child killing terrorist shiat, or he lives like Taliban in BFE, where he doesn't have American shiat.

his life will be shiat. I hope he learns real remorse and regret for his actions.
 
2013-04-29 08:48:37 PM  

BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.


Where exactly is there ANY thing remotely in violation of the Constitution?

Another terrorist apologist who claims this is against the Constitution when it is NOT.
 
2013-04-29 08:50:04 PM  

401kman: You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot


Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans?  I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs.  It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.
 
2013-04-29 08:50:15 PM  

BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

We do not have to destroy the village to save it.


Stop feeding the troll.
 
2013-04-29 08:50:58 PM  
Asking if there are any other bombs is perfectly fine. Anything beyond that is straight up illegal in the absence the requested attorney. Like somebody said, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions.
 
2013-04-29 08:51:33 PM  
Clearly this young lad's civil rights have been abused.
To show that our government isn't a bunch of thugs hellbent on revenge and retribution, he should be released.

/ In The Garden
// During a Bruins game.
/// On Pay-Per-View
 
2013-04-29 08:52:15 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki:  if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.


Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?
 
2013-04-29 08:52:39 PM  

chewielouie: Tatsuma: The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. Urgh that's like the apotheosis of far-Left douchebaggery.

If you ask questions to someone before giving them their miranda rights and without having them charged, they do not need to be provided a lawyer. Nothing they said will be used in court, so they don't need a lawyer in the first place.

No. If you open your mouth and say something before you are charged, it CAN be used against you in court.


Anytime you volunteer information, then it can be used in court.

In your statement, when is one "charged"?  Is that when the police say "you are under arrest"?
 
2013-04-29 08:53:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

Where exactly is there ANY thing remotely in violation of the Constitution?

Another terrorist apologist who claims this is against the Constitution when it is NOT.


Fifth Amendment.

Heard of it?
 
2013-04-29 08:54:03 PM  

401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki:  if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?


Stop feeding the troll.
 
2013-04-29 08:54:38 PM  

The Muthaship: 401kman: You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot

Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans?  I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs.  It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.


What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.
 
2013-04-29 08:55:08 PM  

401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki:  if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?


Wrong.
When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.
Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.
 
2013-04-29 08:55:50 PM  
You become a citizen. you take MY money in the form of welfare. you bomb a marathon, shoot it out with the
cops,  You, arsehole, forfeit your citizenship, and your rights as a citizen. do NOT pass go, do NOT collect 200
dollars, and NO window seat on your bus ride to hell. I think the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment
as well as public humiliation needs an exception for arseholes like this.  C'mon over- bring yo mama along.
 
2013-04-29 08:55:59 PM  

debug: Not surprising, we've been holding people in Cuba for over a decade without trial.  We're not the wonderful idealistic people you all think we are.


Great Satan...or Greatest Satan?
 
2013-04-29 08:58:09 PM  

401kman: What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.


I don't think it was a week, and they had Boston locked down the whole time so that could have thwarted some contemporaneous planned attacks.  And I'm not for ignoring our rights.  I think the massive expansion of the exceptions to Miranda warning under the current DOJ are terrible.  But, where the risk of great harm to the public is imminent, and the only known source of info about it is at risk of expiring, I don't have a problem with them questioning him.  I also don't have a problem with them being precluded from using those statement against him.
 
2013-04-29 08:58:30 PM  
Now, now.  There must be a transcript of the earliest interrogations of Tsarnaev out there somewhere.  Can't we all wait until we see this transcript to determine whether Tsarnaev asked for a lawyer and was refused, and if so, whether the refusal was legit, given whatever exigent circumstances may have existed at the time, under the public safety exception to Miranda?  I'd certainly like to see such a transcript released at the earliest practicable moment.

Until then, all we're doing is conjecturing.  Of course, that's how Glenn Greenwald makes his living.
 
2013-04-29 08:58:38 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Just another fark-up on Fartbongo's watch.  Just remember kiddies, you chose him twice over more qualified people.


Pity none of those people were on the ballot either time :)
 
2013-04-29 08:59:21 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki:  if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?

Wrong.
When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.
Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.


I not going to say anything about what you just wrote but it doesn't make any sense to me and I don't care to understand what you mean by it.

Can somebody put up that picture from Billy Madison?
 
2013-04-29 08:59:30 PM  

PunGent: debug: Not surprising, we've been holding people in Cuba for over a decade without trial.  We're not the wonderful idealistic people you all think we are.

Great Satan...or Greatest Satan?


Satan has been busy taking notes. We humans are *far* more evil than anything Hell could come up with.
 
2013-04-29 08:59:33 PM  

BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

Where exactly is there ANY thing remotely in violation of the Constitution?

Another terrorist apologist who claims this is against the Constitution when it is NOT.

Fifth Amendment.

Heard of it?


Yes.  Do you actually understand it?  Do you actually understand what the Miranda WARNING is?
Why don't you read what I quoted from Wiki?

The 5th amendment right is covered by the fact that any info gained in response to an interrogation when the Miranda Warning is not read, is inadmissible in court due to the 5th amendment.

That does NOT mean that the police can not ask you questions without issuing a Miranda WARNING.  Only that they can't use that info against you.
 
2013-04-29 09:01:17 PM  

401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: tenpoundsofcheese: 401kman: There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.

That is because his rights were NOT violated.

Not getting a Miranda WARNING is not the same as denying him his rights.
Saying it is a violation of his rights is the line from the terrorist apologists.

From wiki:  if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

So no farking rights were violated.  Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Pfft

Sure it is denying him his rights if he asked for a lawyer and was not given one.   Is that too complex for you to understand?

Wrong.
When questioned by police you don't have a Constitutional right to be given a lawyer.
Let me guess, you think he has a right to a phone call too, right?

Now, in an actual trial, that is a different story.

Go read the Constitution instead of watching cop shows on TV, you may learn something.

I not going to say anything about what you just wrote but it doesn't make any sense to me and I don't care to understand what you mean by it.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial
 
2013-04-29 09:02:06 PM  

Theaetetus: The police aren't allowed to hold you for almost 3 days, while denying you access to your lawyer.


In America, yes. Other countries are different.
 
2013-04-29 09:03:22 PM  

401kman: The Muthaship: 401kman: You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot

Aren't you just a sweetie pie.

So, there's no chance they had other associates who had their own explosives and plans?  I read a report that said they found a woman's DNA on one of the bombs.  It's entirely possible that there are more than just these 2 guys behind this.

What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.


You still have not specified what actual (vs. TV show) rights were ignored.
 
2013-04-29 09:05:40 PM  

LessO2: BullBearMS: tenpoundsofcheese: Stop being a terrorist apologist.

Stop shiatting on the Constitution.

We do not have to destroy the village to save it.

Stop feeding the troll.


gossipsucker.com
Stop having a boring tuna.
 
2013-04-29 09:06:10 PM  

The Muthaship: 401kman: What a week later?  Sorry for calling you an idiot, but I just hate the idea that people think that there is any excuse for ignoring our rights.

I don't think it was a week, and they had Boston locked down the whole time so that could have thwarted some contemporaneous planned attacks.  And I'm not for ignoring our rights.  I think the massive expansion of the exceptions to Miranda warning under the current DOJ are terrible.

 But, where the risk of great harm to the public is imminent, and the only known source of info about it is at risk of expiring, I don't have a problem with them questioning him.  I also don't have a problem with them being precluded from using those statement against him.


From everything I have heard about these attacks, the 9/11 attacks, and others.  I just don't buy that there is a real scenario here where that kind of questioning will really work.  Nothing I have read or heard by credible sources indicates that these kind of exemptions and usage of "enhanced" methods shows that they work.

To the contrary,  I am inclined to believe that this is just fiction used by those who would inclined to infringe upon our rights.
 
2013-04-29 09:06:20 PM  

debug: Milo Minderbinder: It is an aggravating factor at sentencing.

It shouldn't.  Children's lives aren't any more important then anyone elses.  Agruably less so, actually.

Don't forget Mittigating factors like: Whether the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

That's going to be the defenses angle right there to try and avoid the death penalty.  Bet on it.


The point is not importance. Rather, children are generally regarded as more vulnerable, less able to protect themselves, making offenses against them that much more despicable.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 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 »






Report