Page 39 of 58 FirstFirst ... 2935363738394041424349 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 862
Like Tree640Likes

Thread: Explosions at Boston Marathon

  1. #571
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    Source?
    From the original Slate article:

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night. He will have to remember on his own that he has a right to a lawyer, and that anything he says can be used against him in court, because the government won’t tell him.

    The above statement indicates that he has the right to a lawyer and to stay quiet, but that the Government, under the Public Safety Exception, is not going to help him remember it.

  2. #572
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    41,515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mel1973 View Post
    That exception, in this case, doesn't bother me in the least.
    Would you feel any differently if it were Bostonians being changed with bomb-crimes in the UK? Like this coach bombing that killed children as well as the servicemen it was targeting? (Just as a frame of reference, I remember this as a kid, it was in my home town). BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1974: Soldiers and children killed in coach bombing
    Free Charmed.

  3. #573
    Elite Member greysfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Burning Down Your Windmill
    Posts
    48,587

    Default

    I don't think the IRA bombings are comparable to the jihadist terrorist bombings at all, but I suppose that's another conversation.
    FUCK YOU AND GIVE ME MY GODDAMN VENTI TWO PUMP LIGHT WHIP MOCHA YOU COCKSUCKING WHORE BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH. I just get unpleasant in my car. - Deej

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic4098_9.gif Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

  4. #574
    Elite Member Mel1973's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cuntopia
    Posts
    42,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Novice View Post
    Would you feel any differently if it were Bostonians being changed with bomb-crimes in the UK? Like this coach bombing that killed children as well as the servicemen it was targeting? (Just as a frame of reference, I remember this as a kid, it was in my home town). BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1974: Soldiers and children killed in coach bombing
    No, I wouldn't. Any motherfucker who knowingly and willingly puts a bomb in a public place without regard for life doesn't deserve ANY fucking rights. If the truth be told, I wouldn't even mind if he was denied an attorney. This guy was an American citizen. Sworn in September 11, 2012 - so, this is an American citizen being charged. I don't dislike this person because of who he is, I loathe him because of WHAT he is. He's a fucking murderer and I'm guessing the only thing he's truly sorry for is that he didn't get to kill more innocent people.
    Kill him.
    Kill her.
    Kill It.
    Kill everything... that IS the solution!
    П(•_•)П
    twitchy molests my signature!

  5. #575
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,418

    Default

    To me the question of his rights is very simple.

    And it's not about his rights at all. It's about my rights.
    olivia, sluce, twitchy2.0 and 1 others like this.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  6. #576
    Elite Member MontanaMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Evading P6 & P7
    Posts
    13,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A*O View Post
    Nah. This guy lost his right to have rights when he deliberately set out to kill and maim his victims.
    Wholly disagree, we are intended to be a nation of laws. It's a very fast slippery slope we're on when we play games with the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mel1973 View Post
    That exception, in this case, doesn't bother me in the least.
    Where's the line? And who do you think should get to determine that?

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    Source?
    The rights exist even if the police/feds don't inform the accused. Meaning that they can't force answers to their questions from him even if they go around the Constitution.
    If i hear one more personal attack, i will type while drunk, then you can cry! - Bugdoll
    (716): I'd call her a cunt, but she doesn't seem to have the depth or warmth
    Quote Originally Posted by shedevilang View Post
    (Replying to MontanaMama) This is some of the smartest shit I ever read

  7. #577
    Elite Member Mel1973's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cuntopia
    Posts
    42,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaMama View Post
    Wholly disagree, we are intended to be a nation of laws. It's a very fast slippery slope we're on when we play games with the constitution.



    Where's the line? And who do you think should get to determine that?



    The rights exist even if the police/feds don't inform the accused. Meaning that they can't force answers to their questions from him even if they go around the Constitution.
    where's the line? Terrorism - be it foreign or domestic.
    who determines it? I'll volunteer.
    Kill him.
    Kill her.
    Kill It.
    Kill everything... that IS the solution!
    П(•_•)П
    twitchy molests my signature!

  8. #578
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,259

    Default

    Eerie infrared (I think) video of Dzhokhar hiding in the boat.


  9. #579
    Elite Member greysfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Burning Down Your Windmill
    Posts
    48,587

    Default

    Is that a goddamn TANK?! Rilly? For one skinny 19yo boy?!
    FUCK YOU AND GIVE ME MY GODDAMN VENTI TWO PUMP LIGHT WHIP MOCHA YOU COCKSUCKING WHORE BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH. I just get unpleasant in my car. - Deej

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic4098_9.gif Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

  10. #580
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    To me the question of his rights is very simple.

    And it's not about his rights at all. It's about my rights.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaMama View Post
    Wholly disagree, we are intended to be a nation of laws. It's a very fast slippery slope we're on when we play games with the constitution.



    Where's the line? And who do you think should get to determine that?



    The rights exist even if the police/feds don't inform the accused. Meaning that they can't force answers to their questions from him even if they go around the Constitution.
    This public safety exemption is extremely vague and so easily abused by authority. It's difficult enough to cooperate with authorities, given their enormous power over you as soon as you interact with them - as suspect or witness. If they are allowed to ignore my civil rights under the umbrella of a fuzzy law, I'm sure not going to report crimes or feed them any information or want them around trying to protect me.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  11. #581
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,418

    Default

    Latest:

    Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arraigned in his hospital bed, though charges are sealed. He will not be tried as an enemy combatant.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  12. #582
    Elite Member Mel1973's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cuntopia
    Posts
    42,951

    Default

    looks like he's been officially charged. Suspect charged in Boston bombing case
    Kill him.
    Kill her.
    Kill It.
    Kill everything... that IS the solution!
    П(•_•)П
    twitchy molests my signature!

  13. #583
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Moment of silence in Boston.

  14. #584
    Elite Member sluce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Top Secret Spy for Leann Rimes
    Posts
    37,330

    Default

    The framers had great intentions but were purposely vague when writing many sections of the Constitution. That allows the Supreme Court to interpret their intent, and sadly, twist it to fit their own agenda. I do believe that most of the Justices try to think of the big picture and the far reaching implications of their decisions. However, the facts remain that their interpretation will be biased. Even if there are facts to guide a decision, but the court feels it would not be in thes best interest of the country, they can simply pull a "I'm the Mom/Dad and that's why" by evoking the Spremacy Clause.
    Mel1973 likes this.
    You don't engage with crazies. Because they're, you know, fucking crazy. - WitchCurlGirl

  15. #585
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,418

    Default

    I thought this was an interesting piece:

    Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

    Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?

    Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.

    Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.

    In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.

    More significantly, there is no known evidence, at least not publicly available, about their alleged motives. Indeed, Obama himself - in the statement he made to the nation after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured on Friday night - said that "tonight there are still many unanswered questions" and included this "among" those "unanswered questions":
    "Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?"

    The overarching principle here should be that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is entitled to a presumption of innocence until he is actually proven guilty. As so many cases have proven - from accused (but exonerated) anthrax attacker Stephen Hatfill to accused (but exonerated) Atlanta Olympic bomber Richard Jewell to dozens if not hundreds of Guantanamo detainees accused of being the "worst of the worst" but who were guilty of nothing - people who appear to be guilty based on government accusations and trials-by-media are often completely innocent. Media-presented evidence is no substitute for due process and an adversarial trial.

    But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism). But as Obama himself acknowledged, we simply do not know what motivated them (Obama: "Tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?").

    It's certainly possible that it will turn out that, if they are guilty, their prime motive was political or religious. But it's also certainly possible that it wasn't: that it was some combination of mental illness, societal alienation, or other form of internal instability and rage that is apolitical in nature. Until their motive is known, how can this possibly be called "terrorism"? Can acts of violence be deemed "terrorism" without knowing the motive?

    This is far more than a semantic question. Whether something is or is not "terrorism" has very substantial political implications, and very significant legal consequences as well. The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies. For the manipulative use of the word "terrorism", see the scholarship of NYU's Remi Brulin and the second-to-last section here.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ora-sandy-hook
    sputnik likes this.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 7th, 2013, 01:34 AM
  2. Stockholm explosions suicide attack: Swedish television
    By celeb_2006 in forum Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 14th, 2010, 08:05 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 6th, 2010, 10:47 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 12:37 PM
  5. No Boston Marathon for Katie Holmes
    By Honey in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: January 14th, 2008, 11:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •