Does the surviving bomber get Mirandized?

'
Well, in my lifetime I have seen patsies murdered on national television, wars started by lies and phony "incidents", CIA criminal and "false flag" operations beyond count, people murdered by the US military and then dumped in the ocean before they could be properly identified -- so many inconsistencies in the "official versions" of events -- that it would come as a real relief if someone who is lynched by the media before he has a trial, and who is not killed before he can tell his story, actually makes it into court in one piece and can, in fact, have a fair trial in the United States.

It would be such a strange and unusual experience.

So I am all for this individual being read his rights and receiving a fair trial and actually being proven guilty!!

It would give me some hope that not all horrors and terrorist acts are the work of the US government and its agencies, and that sometimes there are Satanic acts of which our rulers can be proven not to be guilty.

One has almost lost hope that these horrors will not forevermore be shrouded in mystery and suspicion. Just possibly, this is a terrorist act of which The US government can be proven innocent.

I would not like any dereliction in following the rules of justice to spoil the clarity of such a novelty in our national experience.
.

In your lifetime you have seen Oswald declare himself to be a patsy, but that didn't make him one.

You have rejected some of the bases for why Congress chose to authorize a war, but that doesn't amount to lying to get us into war.

And in your lifetime you have seen plenty of fair trials.

What we don't get treated to all that much is the notion that we should be treating acts of war as though they are the same things as mere crimes.

The rules of our criminal justice system should ALWAYS be followed where they apply.

But there is NO sensible reason to maintain they apply here.

The Obama Administration is merely repeating a mistake the liberals persist in making.

In an odd way we disagree and agree. I agree Obama and all the liberals who have found miranda rights only apply when convenient have made a mistake.

I got to say liberal and mistake in the same sentence! Lol.

More seriously, this issue makes strange bedfellows and the usual liberal/conservative lines get crossed with many folks liberally throwing away constitutional rights.

I can't say I follow your thought process.

But I see damn few liberals who maintain that Miranda warnings should not be required for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Indeed, I see many conservatives who think he should get those warnings, too.

Not only do I say he shouldn't get them, I am one of the relative handful who maintains that he should not even be considered for "trial."

Trials and due process and all that otherwise excellent stuff is not something to which a scumbag illegal combatant should be entitled for acts of war.

The Constitution and the rights we have under it apply where they apply. But they do not apply always and everywhere to all things.

Here on this Board, we enjoy free speech but that does not mean that the Admin cannot impose rules and (zomg!!) RESTRICTIONS. The Constitution does not apply to their right to make such rules.

Normally, if I pick up a rifle which I know to be loaded and working, and point it at another human being and pull the trigger trying to shoot and kill another human being, I would be committing a crime! The Constitution APPLIES to my right to a fair trial and my right to the assistance of counsel, etc., etc., etc.

But if I am picking up that rifle under lawful order of a commanding officer in time of war and trying to shoot and kill an enemy, I am not committing any crime and the Constitutional right to due process does not apply at all.

Different circumstances for very similar acts, with different effects on the very QUESTION of whether the Constitution applies or not.

So, who says that for committing an act of war Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the illegal combatant, should be entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the LEGAL system? On what basis is it claimed that THIS situation is one where the Constitution does apply or even should apply?
 
In your lifetime you have seen Oswald declare himself to be a patsy, but that didn't make him one.

You have rejected some of the bases for why Congress chose to authorize a war, but that doesn't amount to lying to get us into war.

And in your lifetime you have seen plenty of fair trials.

What we don't get treated to all that much is the notion that we should be treating acts of war as though they are the same things as mere crimes.

The rules of our criminal justice system should ALWAYS be followed where they apply.

But there is NO sensible reason to maintain they apply here.

The Obama Administration is merely repeating a mistake the liberals persist in making.

In an odd way we disagree and agree. I agree Obama and all the liberals who have found miranda rights only apply when convenient have made a mistake.

I got to say liberal and mistake in the same sentence! Lol.

More seriously, this issue makes strange bedfellows and the usual liberal/conservative lines get crossed with many folks liberally throwing away constitutional rights.

I can't say I follow your thought process.

But I see damn few liberals who maintain that Miranda warnings should not be required for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Indeed, I see many conservatives who think he should get those warnings, too.

Not only do I say he shouldn't get them, I am one of the relative handful who maintains that he should not even be considered for "trial."

Trials and due process and all that otherwise excellent stuff is not something to which a scumbag illegal combatant should be entitled for acts of war.

The Constitution and the rights we have under it apply where they apply. But they do not apply always and everywhere to all things.

Here on this Board, we enjoy free speech but that does not mean that the Admin cannot impose rules and (zomg!!) RESTRICTIONS. The Constitution does not apply to their right to make such rules.

Normally, if I pick up a rifle which I know to be loaded and working, and point it at another human being and pull the trigger trying to shoot and kill another human being, I would be committing a crime! The Constitution APPLIES to my right to a fair trial and my right to the assistance of counsel, etc., etc., etc.

But if I am picking up that rifle under lawful order of a commanding officer in time of war and trying to shoot and kill an enemy, I am not committing any crime and the Constitutional right to due process does not apply at all.

Different circumstances for very similar acts, with different effects on the very QUESTION of whether the Constitution applies or not.

So, who says that for committing an act of war Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the illegal combatant, should be entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the LEGAL system? On what basis is it claimed that THIS situation is one where the Constitution does apply or even should apply?

I always have an urge to find common ground. I hope he has some slightly sadistic nurses and doctors who let enough pain seep through.

Back to the debate. How do we decide he is an enemy combatant and not a human entitled to Constitutional due process? If I rob a bank and a dozen people die I get a trial.
 
But I see damn few liberals who maintain that Miranda warnings should not be required for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Indeed, I see many conservatives who think he should get those warnings, too.

Not only do I say he shouldn't get them, I am one of the relative handful who maintains that he should not even be considered for "trial."

Trials and due process and all that otherwise excellent stuff is not something to which a scumbag illegal combatant should be entitled for acts of war.
I cannot say how much I admire your semi-divine intelligence and wisdom that permits you to merely glance at the situation in Massachusetts and know, with absolute certainty, that such-and-such a person is guilty of such-and-such a crime, and that no information of any interest could arise from the judicial process.

I wish that there were more people like you in America -- then we wouldn't even need trials and judges and laws and such -- we could just ask you what the truth is, and what we should do.

So, who says that for committing an act of war Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the illegal combatant, should be entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the LEGAL system? On what basis is it claimed that THIS situation is one where the Constitution does apply or even should apply?
Well, you know, if the protection of the Constitution is withdrawn even from some one scoundrel, then there is just the faintest possibility that someday its protection might be withdrawn from even so august a personage as yourself.
.
 
He must get his Miranda warnings by tomorrow at the latest. There is a time limit on how long he can be questioned without his Mirandas. Then he will have an attorney coach him as to what his answers should be according to the defense they want to create.
 
He was already questioned under the new law the US has made up to suit it's own purpose and so it's too late now to deal with him in fairness according to any civilize justice system. What goes around alwasy comes around and especially in cases of ill treatment of prisoner who are being tortured.

You are an ignorant idiot.

The ONLY thing that happens when a "criminal" suspect in custody is questioned without having first gotten a reading of his Miranda warnings and then agreed to be questioned is that whatever he has said in response to that custodial interrogation gets EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE against him at his trial.

Big fucking deal.

He is not the first scumbag not to get Miranda warnings. And for the most part, the other scumbags benefited by having their statements excluded as evidence against them at trial, too.

Raise you hand if you think he needed to say a word, much less confess, to get convicted at his pending trial.

Put your hands down. You are wrong and you are ignorant and you are stupid and you are laughable.
 
He was already questioned under the new law the US has made up to suit it's own purpose and so it's too late now to deal with him in fairness according to any civilize justice system. What goes around alwasy comes around and especially in cases of ill treatment of prisoner who are being tortured.

You are an ignorant idiot.

The ONLY thing that happens when a "criminal" suspect in custody is questioned without having first gotten a reading of his Miranda warnings and then agreed to be questioned is that whatever he has said in response to that custodial interrogation gets EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE against him at his trial.

Big fucking deal.

He is not the first scumbag not to get Miranda warnings. And for the most part, the other scumbags benefited by having their statements excluded as evidence against them at trial, too.

Raise you hand if you think he needed to say a word, much less confess, to get convicted at his pending trial.

Put your hands down. You are wrong and you are ignorant and you are stupid and you are laughable.

Dear IM: Yes, I also remember reading an article that explained
even if someone is NOT read their Miranda rights
this does NOT mean the evidence/testimony is "automatically thrown out"
on a technicality. This is not a given.

I will try to find that and post it if I do.
 
But I see damn few liberals who maintain that Miranda warnings should not be required for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Indeed, I see many conservatives who think he should get those warnings, too.

Not only do I say he shouldn't get them, I am one of the relative handful who maintains that he should not even be considered for "trial."

Trials and due process and all that otherwise excellent stuff is not something to which a scumbag illegal combatant should be entitled for acts of war.
I cannot say how much I admire your semi-divine intelligence and wisdom that permits you to merely glance at the situation in Massachusetts and know, with absolute certainty, that such-and-such a person is guilty of such-and-such a crime, and that no information of any interest could arise from the judicial process.

I wish that there were more people like you in America -- then we wouldn't even need trials and judges and laws and such -- we could just ask you what the truth is, and what we should do.

So, who says that for committing an act of war Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the illegal combatant, should be entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the LEGAL system? On what basis is it claimed that THIS situation is one where the Constitution does apply or even should apply?
Well, you know, if the protection of the Constitution is withdrawn even from some one scoundrel, then there is just the faintest possibility that someday its protection might be withdrawn from even so august a personage as yourself.
.

Thank you Numan for being so civilized.
If everyone were as civilized as you, no, we would not need judges and courts.

We would be too busy admonishing each other politely, maybe swatting with a glove
or tapping with a cane, and resolving our conflicts by Gentlemen's agreements. Thank you and I do wish we'd return to this level of civility in all matters. We'd spend less time and money on litigation, and more on intelligent discussion on how to prevent and correct problems efficiently the minute disputes arose, and not waiting for emotions to escalate.

P.S. as for diminishing Constitutional rights and protections, this is already happening due to the lack of respect between people in political conflict.
when people start abusing free speech or due process to obstruct the same of the other party,
they both diminish the process from being free and equal. we already see this in courts and congress, in the media and online.
as I said I appreciate you and others as well for being as civil as we are on here, given that political discussions are prone to get heated and personal.
it could be better, but it could also be worse.
I trust it gets better, as we get to know each other.
 
Last edited:
As an enemy combatant he has no rights. His weapons are confiscated and he is shuffled into detention until the war is over. Only then will he be released to his homeland. The Geneva convention dictates the only rights that are required of his captors and the only treatment he can expect.

This is far better than I would recommend. If you removed his hands, feet, tongue, eyes and deafened him and released him back to his homeland it would show that terrorism is a one-way ticket to useless life that is beset with evil and torment. From our point of view he would teach that lesson better than we ever can. He cannot be a martyr, he cannot teach others how to be anything other than a vegetable and no mother would want her son to live in this manner so there would be fewer violunteers for the terror squads. WE could win the war on terror but WE would have to be worse terrorists than they.
 
As an enemy combatant he has no rights. His weapons are confiscated and he is shuffled into detention until the war is over. Only then will he be released to his homeland. The Geneva convention dictates the only rights that are required of his captors and the only treatment he can expect.

This is far better than I would recommend. If you removed his hands, feet, tongue, eyes and deafened him and released him back to his homeland it would show that terrorism is a one-way ticket to useless life that is beset with evil and torment. From our point of view he would teach that lesson better than we ever can. He cannot be a martyr, he cannot teach others how to be anything other than a vegetable and no mother would want her son to live in this manner so there would be fewer violunteers for the terror squads. WE could win the war on terror but WE would have to be worse terrorists than they.

Paul, I understand your desire for vengance. Do not let it get in the way of your Constitutional views though. I know it is tough to stand for what is right and not go for the quick and easy fix.

Consider the powers you are giving to Obama to declare anyone including YOU an enemy combatant. Want them to have the power to decide the guns we own make us enemies with no 2nd ammendment rights?
 
As an enemy combatant he has no rights. His weapons are confiscated and he is shuffled into detention until the war is over. Only then will he be released to his homeland. The Geneva convention dictates the only rights that are required of his captors and the only treatment he can expect.

This is far better than I would recommend. If you removed his hands, feet, tongue, eyes and deafened him and released him back to his homeland it would show that terrorism is a one-way ticket to useless life that is beset with evil and torment. From our point of view he would teach that lesson better than we ever can. He cannot be a martyr, he cannot teach others how to be anything other than a vegetable and no mother would want her son to live in this manner so there would be fewer violunteers for the terror squads. WE could win the war on terror but WE would have to be worse terrorists than they.

And man, that crying out to the Geneva convention stuff has me concerned. Sounds like handing over power to the "one world government" types. Do you want Obama to ask the U.N. what kind of legal defense rights you have while awaiting trial?

And did we declare war? Don't let them slide on following the Constitution. Hold the Bushes and Obamas to it or just call yourself a liberal.

To be clear, I woukd love to see the man executed. I just want to follow the Constitutiona nd believe in our human rights.
 
Last edited:
As an enemy combatant he has no rights. His weapons are confiscated and he is shuffled into detention until the war is over. Only then will he be released to his homeland. The Geneva convention dictates the only rights that are required of his captors and the only treatment he can expect.

This is far better than I would recommend. If you removed his hands, feet, tongue, eyes and deafened him and released him back to his homeland it would show that terrorism is a one-way ticket to useless life that is beset with evil and torment. From our point of view he would teach that lesson better than we ever can. He cannot be a martyr, he cannot teach others how to be anything other than a vegetable and no mother would want her son to live in this manner so there would be fewer violunteers for the terror squads. WE could win the war on terror but WE would have to be worse terrorists than they.

And man, that crying out to the Geneva convention stuff has me concerned. Sounds like handing over power to the "one world government" types. Do you want Obama to ask the U.N. what kind of legal defense rights you have while awaiting trial?

And did we declare war? Don't let them slide on following the Constitution. Hold the Bushes and Obamas to it or just call yourself a liberal.

To be clear, I woukd love to see the man executed. I just want to follow the Constitutiona nd believe in our human rights.

Toranado,
You misunderstand. I was simply stating the facts, not what I thought should happen. I am a strict constitutionalist and I know that rights extend to anyone on our soil however If someone is declared an "enemy combatant" they don't have the rights. That was decided during the civil war. The Geneva convention established rules and regulations for the proper treatment of captured enemy combatants during war. Neither of these have anything to do with the New World Order or the UN. The also have nothing to do with this case anymore since the prisoner has been read his rights.
My little tyrade about how to deal with terrorists is the only way we will ever win against them. Anything else just makes them heros or martyrs. Executing him only deals with what he did and makes him a martyr to other followers - sending him homw "incomplete" just makes him pitiful.
 
Paul, I understand your desire for vengance. Do not let it get in the way of your Constitutional views though. I know it is tough to stand for what is right and not go for the quick and easy fix.

Consider the powers you are giving to Obama to declare anyone including YOU an enemy combatant. Want them to have the power to decide the guns we own make us enemies with no 2nd ammendment rights?

The feds and New York City have already done that. They took a mans guns away - mistakenly when they got a miscommunicated ID from the state police. They know it was a case of mistaken identity but he has to go in front of a judge to get his guns back. If you want to fly on a commercial plane you get searched without cause and without a warrant. What you are missing is that our rights are already gone if the government wants to take them we are powerless unless we all stand together - that won't happen until the welfare state collapses.
 
In your lifetime you have seen Oswald declare himself to be a patsy, but that didn't make him one.

You have rejected some of the bases for why Congress chose to authorize a war, but that doesn't amount to lying to get us into war.

And in your lifetime you have seen plenty of fair trials.

What we don't get treated to all that much is the notion that we should be treating acts of war as though they are the same things as mere crimes.

The rules of our criminal justice system should ALWAYS be followed where they apply.

But there is NO sensible reason to maintain they apply here.

The Obama Administration is merely repeating a mistake the liberals persist in making.

In an odd way we disagree and agree. I agree Obama and all the liberals who have found miranda rights only apply when convenient have made a mistake.

I got to say liberal and mistake in the same sentence! Lol.

More seriously, this issue makes strange bedfellows and the usual liberal/conservative lines get crossed with many folks liberally throwing away constitutional rights.

I can't say I follow your thought process.

But I see damn few liberals who maintain that Miranda warnings should not be required for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Indeed, I see many conservatives who think he should get those warnings, too.

Not only do I say he shouldn't get them, I am one of the relative handful who maintains that he should not even be considered for "trial."

Trials and due process and all that otherwise excellent stuff is not something to which a scumbag illegal combatant should be entitled for acts of war.

The Constitution and the rights we have under it apply where they apply. But they do not apply always and everywhere to all things.

Here on this Board, we enjoy free speech but that does not mean that the Admin cannot impose rules and (zomg!!) RESTRICTIONS. The Constitution does not apply to their right to make such rules.

Normally, if I pick up a rifle which I know to be loaded and working, and point it at another human being and pull the trigger trying to shoot and kill another human being, I would be committing a crime! The Constitution APPLIES to my right to a fair trial and my right to the assistance of counsel, etc., etc., etc.

But if I am picking up that rifle under lawful order of a commanding officer in time of war and trying to shoot and kill an enemy, I am not committing any crime and the Constitutional right to due process does not apply at all.

Different circumstances for very similar acts, with different effects on the very QUESTION of whether the Constitution applies or not.

So, who says that for committing an act of war Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the illegal combatant, should be entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the LEGAL system? On what basis is it claimed that THIS situation is one where the Constitution does apply or even should apply?

When you apply that logic (the logic that states you do not need to give them a trial) you open the door for the federal government to order the capture and detainment of any US citizen without cause or reason. I hope you truly understand exactly how much power you want the government to have here.

Essentially your problem is thus: there is nothing that shows the government is unequivocally correct in the 2 suspects that they have levied charges against. That is what the trial if for, determining guilt. Without that requirement, what is to stop the government from collecting you and deeming you as one of the terrorists? They don’t have to prove it therefore there is nothing that is stopping them. You are essentially ceding ALL your rights by allowing the government to slap someone with an accusation (not proof) that they are a terrorist. Perhaps Obama gets tired of Hannity. Next time there is a bombing – BAM, no more Hannity. No trial, no need to bother catching the actual culprits and nothing stopping you from adding a few names you don’t like to the list of culprits either.

Such ideas work on an ACTIVE battlefield. They DO NOT work within the states against citizens that are caught by the police. There is a WORLD of difference in the Boston bombers and people captured outside the nation on battlefields. I, for one, am not willing to cede all of my rights for fear of an event that has managed to claim all of 3 people in several years.
 
In an odd way we disagree and agree. I agree Obama and all the liberals who have found miranda rights only apply when convenient have made a mistake.

I got to say liberal and mistake in the same sentence! Lol.

More seriously, this issue makes strange bedfellows and the usual liberal/conservative lines get crossed with many folks liberally throwing away constitutional rights.

I can't say I follow your thought process.

But I see damn few liberals who maintain that Miranda warnings should not be required for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Indeed, I see many conservatives who think he should get those warnings, too.

Not only do I say he shouldn't get them, I am one of the relative handful who maintains that he should not even be considered for "trial."

Trials and due process and all that otherwise excellent stuff is not something to which a scumbag illegal combatant should be entitled for acts of war.

The Constitution and the rights we have under it apply where they apply. But they do not apply always and everywhere to all things.

Here on this Board, we enjoy free speech but that does not mean that the Admin cannot impose rules and (zomg!!) RESTRICTIONS. The Constitution does not apply to their right to make such rules.

Normally, if I pick up a rifle which I know to be loaded and working, and point it at another human being and pull the trigger trying to shoot and kill another human being, I would be committing a crime! The Constitution APPLIES to my right to a fair trial and my right to the assistance of counsel, etc., etc., etc.

But if I am picking up that rifle under lawful order of a commanding officer in time of war and trying to shoot and kill an enemy, I am not committing any crime and the Constitutional right to due process does not apply at all.

Different circumstances for very similar acts, with different effects on the very QUESTION of whether the Constitution applies or not.

So, who says that for committing an act of war Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the illegal combatant, should be entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the LEGAL system? On what basis is it claimed that THIS situation is one where the Constitution does apply or even should apply?

When you apply that logic (the logic that states you do not need to give them a trial) you open the door for the federal government to order the capture and detainment of any US citizen without cause or reason. I hope you truly understand exactly how much power you want the government to have here.

Essentially your problem is thus: there is nothing that shows the government is unequivocally correct in the 2 suspects that they have levied charges against. That is what the trial if for, determining guilt. Without that requirement, what is to stop the government from collecting you and deeming you as one of the terrorists? They don’t have to prove it therefore there is nothing that is stopping them. You are essentially ceding ALL your rights by allowing the government to slap someone with an accusation (not proof) that they are a terrorist. Perhaps Obama gets tired of Hannity. Next time there is a bombing – BAM, no more Hannity. No trial, no need to bother catching the actual culprits and nothing stopping you from adding a few names you don’t like to the list of culprits either.

Such ideas work on an ACTIVE battlefield. They DO NOT work within the states against citizens that are caught by the police. There is a WORLD of difference in the Boston bombers and people captured outside the nation on battlefields. I, for one, am not willing to cede all of my rights for fear of an event that has managed to claim all of 3 people in several years.

YOUR distinction is entirely artificial.

"Active battlefield" sounds all precise. It isn't.

In the world we now live-in, the meaning of "battlefield" has changed.

When German spies and saboteurs (at least one of whom was a claimed US citizen) in WWII committed or attempted to commit actions in violation of the laws of war, they got treated to a military tribunal. Was that a "battlefield?"

Nope.

When the 9/11 hijacker scumbags committed their atrocities, you might make an argument that the Pentagon is akin to a battlefield, I guess. But you'd be quite hard pressed to make the claim (logically or persuasively) that the Twin Towers or the passenger jets themselves were any "battlefield" in the old sense of the term. Yet that is the "field" into which they took THEIR version of "battle."

So, while I understand the distinction you attempt to draw and I even appreciate your effort to apply logic and "distinctions" to make your argument, I dispute your very definitional premises.

And if we don't buy your premise, your syllogism falls apart.
 
I can't say I follow your thought process.

But I see damn few liberals who maintain that Miranda warnings should not be required for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Indeed, I see many conservatives who think he should get those warnings, too.

Not only do I say he shouldn't get them, I am one of the relative handful who maintains that he should not even be considered for "trial."

Trials and due process and all that otherwise excellent stuff is not something to which a scumbag illegal combatant should be entitled for acts of war.

The Constitution and the rights we have under it apply where they apply. But they do not apply always and everywhere to all things.

Here on this Board, we enjoy free speech but that does not mean that the Admin cannot impose rules and (zomg!!) RESTRICTIONS. The Constitution does not apply to their right to make such rules.

Normally, if I pick up a rifle which I know to be loaded and working, and point it at another human being and pull the trigger trying to shoot and kill another human being, I would be committing a crime! The Constitution APPLIES to my right to a fair trial and my right to the assistance of counsel, etc., etc., etc.

But if I am picking up that rifle under lawful order of a commanding officer in time of war and trying to shoot and kill an enemy, I am not committing any crime and the Constitutional right to due process does not apply at all.

Different circumstances for very similar acts, with different effects on the very QUESTION of whether the Constitution applies or not.

So, who says that for committing an act of war Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the illegal combatant, should be entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the LEGAL system? On what basis is it claimed that THIS situation is one where the Constitution does apply or even should apply?

When you apply that logic (the logic that states you do not need to give them a trial) you open the door for the federal government to order the capture and detainment of any US citizen without cause or reason. I hope you truly understand exactly how much power you want the government to have here.

Essentially your problem is thus: there is nothing that shows the government is unequivocally correct in the 2 suspects that they have levied charges against. That is what the trial if for, determining guilt. Without that requirement, what is to stop the government from collecting you and deeming you as one of the terrorists? They don’t have to prove it therefore there is nothing that is stopping them. You are essentially ceding ALL your rights by allowing the government to slap someone with an accusation (not proof) that they are a terrorist. Perhaps Obama gets tired of Hannity. Next time there is a bombing – BAM, no more Hannity. No trial, no need to bother catching the actual culprits and nothing stopping you from adding a few names you don’t like to the list of culprits either.

Such ideas work on an ACTIVE battlefield. They DO NOT work within the states against citizens that are caught by the police. There is a WORLD of difference in the Boston bombers and people captured outside the nation on battlefields. I, for one, am not willing to cede all of my rights for fear of an event that has managed to claim all of 3 people in several years.

YOUR distinction is entirely artificial.

"Active battlefield" sounds all precise. It isn't.

In the world we now live-in, the meaning of "battlefield" has changed.

When German spies and saboteurs (at least one of whom was a claimed US citizen) in WWII committed or attempted to commit actions in violation of the laws of war, they got treated to a military tribunal. Was that a "battlefield?"

Nope.

When the 9/11 hijacker scumbags committed their atrocities, you might make an argument that the Pentagon is akin to a battlefield, I guess. But you'd be quite hard pressed to make the claim (logically or persuasively) that the Twin Towers or the passenger jets themselves were any "battlefield" in the old sense of the term. Yet that is the "field" into which they took THEIR version of "battle."

So, while I understand the distinction you attempt to draw and I even appreciate your effort to apply logic and "distinctions" to make your argument, I dispute your very definitional premises.

And if we don't buy your premise, your syllogism falls apart.

You can do that. I am not even disputing that what you are saying is not put into practice. What I am saying is that when you acknowledge and consent to giving the government that kind of power, the constitution is meaningless. Your rights are meaningless. Whatever freedom that you believe you have is subject to the whims of the current administration and their willingness to remove everything you have by declaring you a combatant.

That is the reality and it is NOT a power that I am willing to give the government as we are now in a persistent state of war. What you are advocating we accept is a virtual despotism. The government can do anything to you at any moment because you can easily be declared a ‘terrorist.’

As far as I am concerned, the sad day that happens we can simply declare that the terrorists have won – we would no longer be the beacon of freedom that I believe the entire point of this nation is.
 
When you apply that logic (the logic that states you do not need to give them a trial) you open the door for the federal government to order the capture and detainment of any US citizen without cause or reason. I hope you truly understand exactly how much power you want the government to have here.

Essentially your problem is thus: there is nothing that shows the government is unequivocally correct in the 2 suspects that they have levied charges against. That is what the trial if for, determining guilt. Without that requirement, what is to stop the government from collecting you and deeming you as one of the terrorists? They don’t have to prove it therefore there is nothing that is stopping them. You are essentially ceding ALL your rights by allowing the government to slap someone with an accusation (not proof) that they are a terrorist. Perhaps Obama gets tired of Hannity. Next time there is a bombing – BAM, no more Hannity. No trial, no need to bother catching the actual culprits and nothing stopping you from adding a few names you don’t like to the list of culprits either.

Such ideas work on an ACTIVE battlefield. They DO NOT work within the states against citizens that are caught by the police. There is a WORLD of difference in the Boston bombers and people captured outside the nation on battlefields. I, for one, am not willing to cede all of my rights for fear of an event that has managed to claim all of 3 people in several years.

YOUR distinction is entirely artificial.

"Active battlefield" sounds all precise. It isn't.

In the world we now live-in, the meaning of "battlefield" has changed.

When German spies and saboteurs (at least one of whom was a claimed US citizen) in WWII committed or attempted to commit actions in violation of the laws of war, they got treated to a military tribunal. Was that a "battlefield?"

Nope.

When the 9/11 hijacker scumbags committed their atrocities, you might make an argument that the Pentagon is akin to a battlefield, I guess. But you'd be quite hard pressed to make the claim (logically or persuasively) that the Twin Towers or the passenger jets themselves were any "battlefield" in the old sense of the term. Yet that is the "field" into which they took THEIR version of "battle."

So, while I understand the distinction you attempt to draw and I even appreciate your effort to apply logic and "distinctions" to make your argument, I dispute your very definitional premises.

And if we don't buy your premise, your syllogism falls apart.

You can do that. I am not even disputing that what you are saying is not put into practice. What I am saying is that when you acknowledge and consent to giving the government that kind of power, the constitution is meaningless. Your rights are meaningless. Whatever freedom that you believe you have is subject to the whims of the current administration and their willingness to remove everything you have by declaring you a combatant.

That is the reality and it is NOT a power that I am willing to give the government as we are now in a persistent state of war. What you are advocating we accept is a virtual despotism. The government can do anything to you at any moment because you can easily be declared a ‘terrorist.’

As far as I am concerned, the sad day that happens we can simply declare that the terrorists have won – we would no longer be the beacon of freedom that I believe the entire point of this nation is.

Wrong. As I say, I reject your premise.

The Constitution remains viable and quite valid.

Well, it does except for the way certain liberals try to "interpret" it and declare it to be a "living" [sic] document.

It applies to those things to which it is intended to apply. It does NOT apply to those other things to which it is NOT intended to apply. If you guys could simply grasp that rather obvious and basic concept, life would be much simpler and more rational.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top