Miranda rights for terrorists..

[Liability]

However, that's for CRIMINALITY within the context of a legal system.

Last I checked, bombing people was illegal. See: unabomber

Of course it is. So is shooting people. So is cutting their heads off.

All illegal. And yet, it is not always the case that such things are treated as criminal acts. Sometimes they are seen as being what they actually ARE: that is, they are acts of war.

If you were fighting in WWII and some Nazi fuck shot at you, you wouldn't have said, "Jeez. That fucking Nazi should get arrested." You wouldn't have taunted him by calling out "Mother fucker, I'll see you in COURT!"

Did you know that sometimes (this will shock some of our more faint-hearted liberal friends, but still, it has to be said) in war we choose not to arrest the enemy? I swear it! It's the truth. SOMETIMES, by golly, we actually just shoot them -- to death -- right then and there.

 

[JBeukema]

If you were fighting in WWII and some Nazi fuck shot at you

If someone is caught in a warzone engaging in war against our troops, then they are enemy troops thus caught. Anyone caught committing a criminal act in our nation, regardless of where they're from (that bullshit 'diplomatic immunity' crap excluded) is a criminal to be tried in the courts for their crimes. It really is that simple.

If you can't tell the difference between being in the middle of a battle in a warzone and capturing someone committing or planning a criminal act here in the States, then there's no point wasting time with you

 

[Liability]

If you were fighting in WWII and some Nazi fuck shot at you

If someone is caught in a warzone engaging in war against our troops, then they are enemy troops thus caught. Anyone caught committing a criminal act in our nation, regardless of where they're from (that bullshit 'diplomatic immunity' crap excluded) is a criminal to be tried in the courts for their crimes. It really is that simple.

If you can't tell the difference between being in the middle of a battle in a warzone and capturing someone committing or planning a criminal act here in the States, then there's no point wasting time with you

You are a disingenuous little twat.

There is a difference well known to all of us, even shitheads like you, between hostilities on the battle field and hostilities on the home front.

What disingenuous pussies like you cannot acknowledge is that for CERTAIN acts of war committed RIGHT here on our home front, it has been historically upheld that the penalty could be summary execution.

So if you were an al qaeda operative and right here on our home front you engaged in some vile act of sabotage intended to cause large scale damage and a huge number of deaths (some crap ala the 9/11/2001 atrocities) and you got caught in the act, YOU could have been subjected to summary execution.

Full disclosure: A recent very misguided Court ruling has arguably changed that legal truth, but it had been true for most of our history and the legal foundation for the Court ruling is pure bullshit.

SOME acts of war are by their very nature illegal acts of war. And folks like you need CONSTANT reminding that our Constitution is not (and was never intended to be) a suicide pact.

 

[eots]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

In your book ?...I believe it is little and red...and its been written already

 

[JBeukema]

You are a disingenuous little twat.

says the guy comparing shooting a man during a firefight to arresting a man planting a bomb

There is a difference well known to all of us

Except you, as demonstrated by your earlier post

it has been historically upheld

Appeal to tradition. It was historically upheld that blacks were less than human and that the King had a god-given right to rule over us. That doesn't make it right

our Constitution is not (and was never intended to be) a suicide pact.

Try thinking instead of spewing random nonsensical and irrelevant catchphrases

 

[Liability]

You are a disingenuous little twat.

says the guy comparing shooting a man during a firefight to arresting a man planting a bomb

Wong, moron. I was responding to one of your typically shallow and ill-considered comments, jerk-off. You are the little-dick imbecile who said that the last time you checked bombing was criminal. You fucking shit stain. Yeah. It is, was my response, but it is ALSO, depending on the context, an ACT of war. And we make distinctions (well, those of us with working brains, which leaves pathetic crap like you out) between mere criminality and acts of war. If I shoot your filthy Nazi ass on a battlefield, jerk-off, I have committed no "crime." If I shot you on a city street here in the USA for no good reason, the very same behavior WOULD be criminal. Try to keep up, stupid.

There is a difference well known to all of us

Except you, as demonstrated by your earlier post

Wrong again, shit-for-brains. Your inability to comprehend simple English is entirely on you, stupid.

* * * *

(Note: some of JB's blather = snipped for brevity. Nothing of consequence. Not that any of his stuff is of consequence!)

our Constitution is not (and was never intended to be) a suicide pact.

Try thinking instead of spewing random nonsensical and irrelevant catchphrases

Ironic coming from a shit muncher like you who obviously can't "think." I didn't merely spew that line. I quoted it. Unlike you, ya diseased shit bird, I actually grasp what it means. You are too fucking addled to have ever grasped its import in the first fucking place. Let's simplify this for a moron like you: NOTHING in our Constitution compels the simplistic, bombastic and ridiculous conclusion that we are now obligated -- or ever were obligated -- to give Miranda warnings to captured fucking enemies in time of war for acts of war. It borders on suicidally STUPID to even THINK in such a ridiculous fashion.

Tragically, you still won't be grasping any of this.

Hurry back with your distortions and mis-comprehension and additional lame flames, though. You're on the clock.

 

[JBeukema]

What's your obsession with my genitalia? Seriously, that's kinda weird.


Come back when you can have an intelligent discussion without cursing, getting upset, and concentrating on what you think my groin would be like in your mouth, k?

 

[Liability]

What's your obsession with my genitalia? Seriously, that's kinda weird.

Zzzzzzz. You boring trite disingenuous losers ALWAYS use that stale line when you can't handle the points stacking up against you, shit bird. Nobody actually gives a damn about your little dick, clit boi.

Come back when you can have an intelligent discussion * * * *

It wouldn't matter. YOU certainly couldn't appreciate it anyway. You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

Tell ya what. Don't come back at all, since you almost never contribute intelligent commentary. Much easier.

The FACT remains, ya pedantic shit head, that not all actions which can constitute a criminal act are classified as criminal in all contexts. And it is more than a little fucking stupid to treat all such behavior in such an ill-considered formulaic fashion.

Again, it's obvious you are unable and unwilling to discuss this on a rational basis. You need to cling to your petty quibbles, instead.

 

[JBeukema]

not all actions which can constitute a criminal act are classified as criminal in all contexts.

No shit. You just now learned about the self-defense exemption when it comes to homicide law or what?

We'll tell the driver of the short bus to go and get you since you missed the first bus.

you are unable and unwilling to discuss this on a rational basis

I'm the only rational one between us. You can't post without wondering about my cock, cursing, and getting all PMSy

 

[rikules]

washingtonpost.com


In my book, when you commit a terrorist act, you must face the music and pay the ultimate price, and deal with what ever punishment comes your way.Like it or not.Terrorists are criminals and deserve nothing less than hanging, firing Squad or a life time stay in the Brig(Big House with bars.

so ....

you don't want to waste time PROVING that they are terrorists?

you don't want to bother even giving them a trial?

if someone (even an innocent person) is accused of terrorism (even though they didn't)
you just want to shoot them? (even though they aren't guilty?)

miranda rights are a warning to SUSPECTS (prior to actual arrest) warning them of their rights

I can see where a third world dictatorship might agree with you on the non-need of miranda rights

but surely
in the greatest most wonderful most civilized country in the world the least we can do BEFORE we kill innocent people is read them their rights and give them a fair trial...

btw...
what third world dictatorship shithole do you actually live in?

 

[Liability]

not all actions which can constitute a criminal act are classified as criminal in all contexts.

No shit. You just now learned about the self-defense exemption when it comes to homicide law or what?

No asshole. I am correcting YOUR myopic mis-statements. And yes, that IS an example of how your priuor statement was flatly wrong. Hm. Maybe you ARE marginally educable. Doubtful. But possible.

* * * *

{JpukeEnema's lame ad hominem snipped since it was too lame to quote}

you are unable and unwilling to discuss this on a rational basis

I'm the only rational one between us.

Obviously untrue. If it were true, you could have begun at any time. You should. So far, of course, you have not.

You can't post without wondering about my cock, cursing, and getting all PMSy

Not only can I, I have. But you can't post without your incredibly lame ad hominems, dishonesty and piss-poor "logic" or without your dedicated and studious determination to distort the facts (or your failure to comprehend them in the first place).

Smarten up kid.

 

[rikules]

We aren't bullshitting about Gaza, are we?

well, i wasn't referring to gaza. i was referring to our means of adjudicating terror suspects.

i'm all for throwing away the key on anyone who's a terrorist, domestic or otherwise, but I think we have to play by the rules to get to the conclusion that they *are* terrorists.

I was referring to the US but rights should be universal.

 

[rikules]

Abdul, the terrorist, is captured planting a bomb (one of several which are located and disarmed) on a NY City Subway train. Had his plan come to fruition, thousands of people would have died at pretty much the same instant.

Because he is caught IN the USA (yes, the NYC Subway is within our borders and part of us), many say that Abdul is only an ALLEGED terrorist. He is thus entitled to by God RIGHTS, including the right to counsel, a trial, the right to remain silent and the right to be advised of his right to remain silent.

Would he be entitled to these same rights if he was to be treated as a mere illegal enemy combatant instead of as a "criminal?"

How about if he was captured on the field of battle in some overseas hot spot? Upon being captured in the process of planting some highly lethal bomb directed at a U.S. military base, is it the belief of the folks in this god-forsaken Administration that he is actually entitled to be given fucking Miranda warnings?

Isn't that exactly the kind of mullahfukkah we WANT to interrogate? But no? Instead we tell him ALL about his alleged "right" not to speak with us at all? Are the folks running this Government out of their fucking minds?

"Abdul, the terrorist, is captured planting a bomb (one of several which are located and disarmed) on a NY City Subway train. Had his plan come to fruition, thousands of people would have died at pretty much the same instant."

under this scenario he should be read his rights, arrested, tried and executed


"Because he is caught IN the USA (yes, the NYC Subway is within our borders and part of us), many say that Abdul is only an ALLEGED terrorist. He is thus entitled to by God RIGHTS, including the right to counsel, a trial, the right to remain silent and the right to be advised of his right to remain silent."

if, as you say, he is captured in the act then he should be read his rights, arrested, tried and executed



"Would he be entitled to these same rights if he was to be treated as a mere illegal enemy combatant instead of as a "criminal?""

captured in the US?
yes

captured on the battlefield?
then NO MIRANDA warning. capture, interrogation, MILITARY trial and execution


"How about if he was captured on the field of battle in some overseas hot spot? Upon being captured in the process of planting some highly lethal bomb directed at a U.S. military base, is it the belief of the folks in this god-forsaken Administration that he is actually entitled to be given fucking Miranda warnings?"

in this case NO MIRANDA. capture, interrogation, MILITARY TRIAL and execution

"Isn't that exactly the kind of mullahfukkah we WANT to interrogate? But no? Instead we tell him ALL about his alleged "right" not to speak with us at all? Are the folks running this Government out of their fucking minds? "

as a civilized nation that keeps telling the rest of the world how much better we are than them we should hold ourselves to a higher standard

 

[percysunshine]

"You have the right to remain stupid. Anything you say can and will be used against your moronic buddies. You have the right to speak to an a-hole. If you cannot afford an a-hole, one will be appointed for you and attached with a staple gun. Do you understand these rights as we have tattooed them on your forehead?"

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no internationally recognized definition for terrorism.

It has become a meaningless, politically motivated name calling thing.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[germanguy]

Disgusting...

It took us as the west centuries to build a system in which the letters of the law and not something else is used to cope with crime. It is a system made by humans and therefore far away from beeing perfect.

The whole system in every western country works roughly the same way:

If you commit a crime and are getting caught, you are put to trial by the state attorney who lays down his case, defended by a barrister and judged by a jury (well, here in germany by a court consisting of professional judges and normal citizens).

Until you got you judgement, you are a suspect. You have unalienable rights, defined by the constitutions (which have, according to my knowledge, no exceptions like "...not valid for certain groups...").

Other system:
Stalin´s Russia or Hitler´s Germany:was guilty of his crime, otherwise he would not have been a suspect. Torture was used to produce the prefabricated confession.

In Hitler´s Germany there was the normal juridical system, and there was the concentration camp system in which you were put only by simple order.
A danger to the society was simply removed to a KZ and treated accordingly. And a lot of groups were dangers to the society. And who was a danger was decided by the Nazis.

So in every society, where not a court but the state decides who is a danger, you are probably in a fascist state.

It might be strange to put terrorists to trial and mirandarize them, but the alternative looks like something from the dark ages. I do not want this, because then next vegetarians, tea party members or mormons are on the list.

There is a line we all should not cross and this line is defined by our western ideals:
That the human being has, whatever idiot he is, unalienable rights. Point.

Our constitution says in it´s first article:


(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

I consider this as a progress and I am not willing to sacrifice it, because some bloody idiots throw bombs. The alternative is more gruesome.