April 21, 201313 yr Good article on the process of catching these two. Aunt ID'd them after the photos were released. Younger bro ran over his brother accidentally and dragged him. Police, citizens and technology factor into Boston bombing probe - The Washington Post In that story we can see the good and the bad of technology. The good far outweighs the bad.
April 21, 201313 yr What about the VICTIMS, they have rights too!!!! They have the right to watch a race without some nuts setting off bombs to injure and kill as many people as they can. If you don't agree with me, it's ok,but I know of at least 175 that will. What about the rights of the MIT policeman,what happened to his rights. (My first and last post in this thread.) Citizen? Your kidding, right? The guy is shooting and throwing hand grenades at the cops , and you think the cops give a rats butt about that? What happens to his rights if he dies from his injuries, he gets the same rights as his brother got. Having a relative in law enforcement, seeing or hearing about cops being shot at or killed, sends chills down my spine. May God bless them all. We should give him his rights because arbitrarily picking when suspects do or do not get their rights can be extremely dangerous. Now, if he can LEGALLY be considered an enemy combatant, then I am OK with treating him as such.
April 21, 201313 yr I guess they'll have it worked out before they're able to question him. I imagine there's a lot of manpower on it this weekend.
April 21, 201313 yr Who said it does? No one but its been headed in that direction. As far as opinions on the slippery slope.
April 21, 201313 yr Heard a guy mention that with the war on terror the definition of enemy combatant has been expanded as we are not at war with a nation. Thus a tie to a country does not need to be established but only a tie to an ideology combined with a terrorist act. Exactly, so if you're not going to call him a terrorist/enemy combatant what would you label him. Everyone keeps saying slippery slope, I'm not seeing it, seems pretty cut and dry to me in this case.
April 21, 201313 yr Let me preface the following with the fact that I'm not well-versed on law. What is the definition of a "terrorist act?" If it's deemed a "terrorist act" by an American citizen does he/she lose his rights? We can all get into a semantics debate about "terrorism." I'm talking about legalities. Do the actions meet the requirements to suspend rights given to US citizens? From what I've read and heard based off of supreme court rulings yes the actions meet the requirements. In the above video the gentlemen mentions the constitution and says we can't pick and choose however he doesn't acknowledge that going the route of declaring suspect #2 an enemy combatant is considered in practice justifiable based upon previous supreme court rulings. It's not like they're just making it up as they go along here.
April 21, 201313 yr If rights violations for murderous terrorists are not an issue maybe someone can finally put Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn on trial.
April 22, 201313 yr I think the Russians said it best, terrorism is terrorism. No need to put domestic or international in front of it, to do so only clouds peoples judgement that a terrorist could be someone like the Uni bomber, Tim McVeigh or Terry Nichols, an American, just like this 19 year old is. The questions should be 1) What is terrorism? and 2) Are the school shooters terrorist? I can't recall people calling any of the school shooters terrorist. The slippery slope is what rights are we willing to take away from an American, on American soil? If they are are taken away, then where and when does it stop? The kid deserves his rights, and deserves a defender in a court of law! NOT a military trial! Whoever thinks the kid will ever see the light of day as a free man again is either ignorant or fooling themselves. But, having said that, I agree with the pubilc safety concern and not reading him his rights, they aren't given to a lot of people anyway, and if you are an American and don't realize you have those right anyway, then you're an idiot! But I agree, they need to make sure there are not other devices out there that could harm anyone else.
April 22, 201313 yr I wonder if either of these guys had a history of diagnosed mental health issues? I haven't heard anything that suggest that they were but was just wondering if anyone else had.
April 22, 201313 yr On 60 minutes they said he has a bullet wound that entered his mouth and exited the back of his neck. They are not sure if it was a suicide attempt or not. How many suicide attempts in this manor result in the person living?
April 22, 201313 yr On 60 minutes they said he has a bullet wound that entered his mouth and exited the back of his neck. They are not sure if it was a suicide attempt or not. How many suicide attempts in this manor result in the person living? I'd say very few.
April 22, 201313 yr On 60 minutes they said he has a bullet wound that entered his mouth and exited the back of his neck. They are not sure if it was a suicide attempt or not. How many suicide attempts in this manor result in the person living? Suicide by gun is lethal about 90% of the time....so 1 out of 10 people survive it.
April 22, 201313 yr Let me preface the following with the fact that I'm not well-versed on law. What is the definition of a "terrorist act?" If it's deemed a "terrorist act" by an American citizen does he/she lose his rights? We can all get into a semantics debate about "terrorism." I'm talking about legalities. Do the actions meet the requirements to suspend rights given to US citizens? I missed this first go around. But those two words highlighted above caught me when I saw then in a reply. I am not sure who has authority to 'suspend' an right. That would be like a 'super user' on a computer system who can 'do anything' I guess. And then we have to ask who or what has 'given' the rights to US citizens? No man or man-made instrument 'gave' rights to US Citizens. The rights were present before Constitution and before the Federal government. The Constitution assumes those rights exist before the creation of the Constitution. The Constitution's Bill of Rights specific instructs the government what it can not do to remove those rights. The Constitution, nor the US government 'give' any rights. I posted the reasoning on this yesterday - here. Rights are trampled on all the time but these did catch my eye since its easier to trample on rights when when we view them as granted to us instead of something that we always have - unless we voluntarily forfeit them.
April 25, 201313 yr I heard today that the FBI is now claiming they lost opportunity to gain a lot of critical information because a Judge and a US Assistant Attorney maradized the suspect after 16 hours of question and the FBI was promised 48 and had lots more questions. Both the FBI and the US attorney's office report to DOJ (Holder). So how does that happen?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.