Boston bomber refusing to talk after reading of Miranda rights-Thanks liberals

[KevinWestern]

Miranda warning then silence from bombing suspect - Road Runner

Not a big fan of due process and guaranteed rights?

You're trotting a slippery slope, my friend.

.

 

[editec]

He is a citizen of this nation.

His rights ought to be inviolate.

If you cannot understand that, then you truly do not understand American values/
(Much like out government no longer does, I note)

He ought to not have acted like an enemy combatant.

Maybe what he told the man whose car he hijacked at gunpoint following the crime can clear a little of it up for you:

• Share this

BOSTON, April 22 (Reuters) - The suspects in last week's Boston Marathon bombing delivered a chilling message to the man they carjacked near midnight Thursday: "Did you hear about the Boston explosion" and "I did that," according to court papers unsealed on Monday. (Reporting by Tim McLaughlin, Aaron Pressman and Scott Malone; Editing by Cynthia Johnston)

FYI, in 2006 Congress expanded rules for terroristic activities to include considering those involved be tried in military courts as enemy combatants. Those rules are still in effect and should be observed in this case where terrorists planted a bomb right next to two children, one of whom died, and the other of whom lost her leg. They callously used a national sports event to publicize their hatred, and they made us pay for it by living off our public good will with murder, mayhem, and child abuse as their payback. If you cannot understand that, then it is you who truly may not understand American values.

Yup, that's right.


In 2006 Congress pass and Obama signed away our constituitional rights.

See?

On this WE AGREE.

 

[candycorn]

It depends. Eyewitnesses say otherwise. His suicide attempt under fire adds a certain statement. His admission to the crime prior to being mirandized makes another statement. His implication of others involved in the crime makes a certain statement. His shoplifter-mother's "Allah Akhbar" bullshit makes a certain statement. At the bottom line, he is on suicide watch 24/7 and he has been furnished reading materials and been given the red carpet treatment.

Ms. Bongo's "You righties" when speaking of a common terroristic enemy on this thread is a little precocious, and highly indicative of an overly-ambitious desire to bolster such malicious intention against the hardworking Americans business owners are as to split the nation by disabling American breadwinners.

If he is not tried as an enemy combatant, which he most certainly may be, It will only be if Eric Holder is impeached for proliferating terroristic causes with publicizing a trial that would better be handled by a military court.

If you came to USMB to prosper deepening the rift between right and left, your country is going to pay a price for abusing the dignity of people who bring home the bacon so both righties and lefties can have jobs if they are willing to work for it sans biting the hand that feeds them in a prejudicial Marxist design that to date has destroyed many a formerly-prosperous business. Smearing righties for attempting to stop America from becoming a society that parasitizes its own strength is beyond the pale, imho.

Apparently a cop can lean on you in the interrogation room for 16 hours, deprive you of counsel, coerce a confession, and you're all for it? That is what "it depends" means. You must be in favor of hate crime sentencing then...that also falls under "it depends".

He was an enemy combatant in his thought, word, and deed,, madam. That's the essence of any "dependence" that "it" takes.

He said that? Yes or no.

 

[candycorn]

He was a US citizen. So cons are in favor of Eliminating certain segments of the Bill of Rights but the second amendment is off limits?

His citizenship was obtained under false pretenses.

He came here not to be a citizen, but to mass murder American citizens with a devastating bomb. Early examinations said the bombs didn't ignite properly and killed fewer people than planned.

Listen to you fucking assholes, twisting things around to try and be able to do anything to anybody, but screaming foul if the same things should ever happen to you or people you admire.

Just look at how much complaining you people are doing about the Al-Awlaki, simply because it's political to you and you think you can use it as an edge against Obama.

Just remember, the same government you twist around to be able to prosecute and interrogate people that goes against the law, will be the same government towering over you.

You people complain about the government so much, and yet you advocate all the things that make the government and other authorities worse for us.

It is strange isn't it? They need to keep their guns and lord knows what else to stave off an intrusive government but sponsor government infringement.

We have more people in prison than any other country...nearly all of them if not all of them had their miranda rights read to them. Christ the right wing loons are fucking idiots.

 

[Truthmatters]

werent they mad last week for him NOT being mirandised?

 

[Enterthe5t4rz]

The PTB can now shape the narrative however the want. The man can't speak anyway. They removed his vocal chords.

 

[KevinWestern]

The PTB can now shape the narrative however the want. The man can't speak anyway. They removed his vocal chords.

Yea, I read he was "heavily sedated" and "in and out of consciousness" when he gave the confession (does that sound like a condition for an accurate account?). Plain and simple - he's extremely vulnerable to manipulation.

 

[whitehall]

Listen you ignorant a-holes on both sides on the political spectrum. A federal judge dismissed about a thousand felonies and every charge against Bill Ayers because the FBI allegedly screwed up. Now you want to deny the 5th Amendment rights to another citizen just because you hate what he did? Get rid of the Miranda stuff if you want to but you can't pick and choose which citizens deserve Constitutional protection. You may be next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

whitehall has the right (and left) of it.

The 5th applies to all of us, no exceptions.

 

[candycorn]

Listen you ignorant a-holes on both sides on the political spectrum. A federal judge dismissed about a thousand felonies and every charge against Bill Ayers because the FBI allegedly screwed up. Now you want to deny the 5th Amendment rights to another citizen just because you hate what he did? Get rid of the Miranda stuff if you want to but you can't pick and choose which citizens deserve Constitutional protection. You may be next.

Remember Susan Smith--the woman who drove the car into the lake with her two children in it? Her story was that some black dudes took her kids. Imagine if the cops wanted to get a confession from someone they picked up...16 hours in the box with a cop who "knows" you did it.

How this ever became an issue is remarkable because those who are most often engrandizing America as being exceptional are the first ones to cast aside the very foundation of that exceptionalism; that you are innocent until proven guilty. Antiquated notion in the "give it to me now" society we have; come to think of it, it's that society the same blowhards constantly criticize.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since he obtained citizenship by false pretenses, it should be stripped from him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a stupid comment, katz. Grow up or step off.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Since he obtained citizenship by false pretenses, it should be stripped from him.

You have proof that he planned on bombing people before he ever moved here?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since he obtained citizenship by false pretenses, it should be stripped from him.

You have proof that he planned on bombing people before he ever moved here?

Yup, that dastardly 8 year old even back then was taking electronic bomb diagramming classes.

 

[Flopper]

If your important other, parent, child, or best friend were murdered by homicide bombers, you might be a tad bit inconvenienced yourself, child.

Is he considered innocent until proven guilty? Just asking.

It depends. Eyewitnesses say otherwise. His suicide attempt under fire adds a certain statement. His admission to the crime prior to being mirandized makes another statement. His implication of others involved in the crime makes a certain statement. His shoplifter-mother's "Allah Akhbar" bullshit makes a certain statement. At the bottom line, he is on suicide watch 24/7 and he has been furnished reading materials and been given the red carpet treatment.

Ms. Bongo's "You righties" when speaking of a common terroristic enemy on this thread is a little precocious, and highly indicative of an overly-ambitious desire to bolster such malicious intention against the hardworking Americans business owners are as to split the nation by disabling American breadwinners.

If he is not tried as an enemy combatant, which he most certainly may be, It will only be if Eric Holder is impeached for proliferating terroristic causes with publicizing a trial that would better be handled by a military court.

If you came to USMB to prosper deepening the rift between right and left, your country is going to pay a price for abusing the dignity of people who bring home the bacon so both righties and lefties can have jobs if they are willing to work for it sans biting the hand that feeds them in a prejudicial Marxist design that to date has destroyed many a formerly-prosperous business. Smearing righties for attempting to stop America from becoming a society that parasitizes its own strength is beyond the pale, imho.

So you're saying the presumption of innocent depend on what?

 

[emilynghiem]

OP hates the 5th Amendment.

It makes no sense to enable people to ABUSE the 5th Amendment to obstruct due process and equal protection of the victims' interests and national security.

The use of legal defense should clearly for negotiating the conditions under which all information WILL be released, in order to cooperate and deserve constitutional protections under law. It makes no sense to violate the VERY SAME constitutional laws being invoked by these people!
Why should we pay for defense of people "under the law" UNLESS they agree to follow and uphold the same laws and rights for others???
Shouldn't the right to defense be used as MOTIVATION where it requires a CONDITION to cooperate fully if you want a lawyer to help you negotiate those conditions of full cooperation?

So the point should be that the information necessary to establish truth and justice is FREELY FACILITATED under protective counsel, but NOT BLOCKED OR OBSTRUCTED
which violates the right to a public speedy trial and the rights of others to equal justice.

This legal abuse has to stop, or else it violates the Constitutional rights to security and due process needed to protect and represent the OTHER parties and interests equally. ALL parties with a stake should have FREE SPEECH and right to petition until ALL GRIEVANCES are resolved to reach a fair agreement on restitution, correction and other consequences.

If you don't believe in all the work it would take to reach such an agreement after a crime has occurred, then don't commit crimes and nobody's rights get violated to begin with.
If people can't understand this, they should not be allowed to invoke rights of citizenship, especially after committing crimes unless they accept full legal responsibility instead of abusing laws and lawyers to shirk them; all people should be trained on the cost and process of preserving and restoring equal rights under law, especially lawyers, in order to stop abuses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This "enable people to ABUSE the 5th Amendment to obstruct due process and equal protection of the victims' interests and national security" statement is no more valid now than in 1791 when the 5th Amendment was ratified..

 

[whitehall]

For over forty years Police Officers have had to tell persons they arrested that they had the right to an attorney and anything they said would be held against them and nobody on the left or right gave a damn that slickster attorneys were getting felons off the hook for no other reason than a rookie cop forgot to Marandize a monster. Here we are in the 21st century and all of a sudden, duh, everyone is hysterical that the feds are forced to give a citizen his Miranda rights. Live with it or get rid of it but you might be next if you allow the federal government to choose which citizen is covered by the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is he considered innocent until proven guilty? Just asking.

It depends. Eyewitnesses say otherwise. His suicide attempt under fire adds a certain statement. His admission to the crime prior to being mirandized makes another statement. His implication of others involved in the crime makes a certain statement. His shoplifter-mother's "Allah Akhbar" bullshit makes a certain statement. At the bottom line, he is on suicide watch 24/7 and he has been furnished reading materials and been given the red carpet treatment.

Ms. Bongo's "You righties" when speaking of a common terroristic enemy on this thread is a little precocious, and highly indicative of an overly-ambitious desire to bolster such malicious intention against the hardworking Americans business owners are as to split the nation by disabling American breadwinners.

If he is not tried as an enemy combatant, which he most certainly may be, It will only be if Eric Holder is impeached for proliferating terroristic causes with publicizing a trial that would better be handled by a military court.

If you came to USMB to prosper deepening the rift between right and left, your country is going to pay a price for abusing the dignity of people who bring home the bacon so both righties and lefties can have jobs if they are willing to work for it sans biting the hand that feeds them in a prejudicial Marxist design that to date has destroyed many a formerly-prosperous business. Smearing righties for attempting to stop America from becoming a society that parasitizes its own strength is beyond the pale, imho.

So you're saying the presumption of innocent depend on what?

1. politically the system is supposed to start neutral. this is called presuming innocence until proven guilty.
2. true neutrality would be neither to assume guilt nor innocence until either is established, and if you really want to be unbiased, then any "truth" established would be by consent of all parties so the govt is not imposing this decision but the people involved are arriving at their own conclusion and the govt is just governing the due process to get there without unfair coercion or omission/imposition of unsubstantiated information that the various parties don't all agree to using in their decision making. That would be neutral.
3. spiritually, if the person on trial already assumed others were guilty and deserved retribution, then that is what that person is going to get back spiritually from people judging from the outside. so that is what people are expressing here, unless they chose to be more objective or neutral as in #1 and #2.

I believe that to be fully unbiased religiously, and to protect all interests equally in making decisions, then #2 would be necessary to follow. But our courts/legal system are not perfected enough to accommodate that level of neutral mediation and equal inclusion and protection of all sides in a case. There are some victim/offender and murder-reconciliation programs that have been able to make peace on this level directly with the parties, but they have no influence on the legal process and outcome which is separate; they work strictly on a spiritual level to make peace between the people affected in murder cases. The spiritual based reconciliation programs must remain completely voluntary in participation and outcomes; so this is separate from the judicial and legal systems that are mandatory where decisions are enforced by law by the government.

The ideal to me would be to use the spiritually neutral and free environment and p rocess to work out all issues among the people first, then take their decisions to the govt process and work out mandatory decisions from there. that way, the healing and grievance process of the victims would be respected and not overrun by limitations on govt process.

This is also why I believe in restorative justice; it would help heal and correct issues after violations occur, and it would do more to prevent them in the future by raising standards.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm sorry but in a country of 315,000,000 people, 4 dead individuals is not sufficient reason for us to suspend and give up rights (ie due process) that took thousands of years of fighting to obtain.

Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that the great majority of us were either serfs or slaves.
.