IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
'
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?