Title is misleaded, as usual. They filed the complaint too quick, and yes, they had warning that it was going to happen. The Magistrate told them on Sunday as she was given the first sealed charges that she planned to hold his hearing the next day, as federal rules required him to appear before the judge within one business day. She did what she told them what she would do, and what the rules require.

 

Like it or not, he is a U.S. citizen, and entitled to his rights.

I am all for individual rights but in cases of terrorism and/or national security I draw the line in the sand.

 

I don't know if that is a very good place, but it sure is a safer place.

 

I get where you're coming from. But the fact that he's an American citizen changes a lot of those calculations for me. I'm especially not crazy about the FBI questioning him under a public safety exception that I've always thought was pretty bogus anyway.

 

There are a lot of things out there that would make us safer but we believe they'd infringe too much on our freedom to do them.

Since when does a terrorist need a Jury to label him that? That makes no sense at all. I don't need 12 people to label him a terrorist, I labeled him a terrorist and that is all that matters.

 

Because he's an American citizen. He was charged with crimes related to terrorism. If he wasn't an American, then he'd get treated differently. This is the United States; we have laws. Sometimes we don't like them but we do abide by them.

A terrorist should not be awarded the rights of a common criminal in the United States period.

I'm sorry, but how in the world do justify stripping an AMERICAN CITIZEN of his rights before his trial?

 

Tsarnaev is an American. He committed his crimes in America, was arrested in America, and he will be tried--and almost certainly executed--in America.

 

Would you feel differently if the DOJ had a press conference this afternoon, announcing that they'd discovered a terrorist plot by the NRA to blow up the White House and that the entire leadership of the organization had been detained and sent to Guantanamo Bay? Would you still feel like a charged but not convicted terrorist deserved no rights as an American citizen?

 

We don't get to pick and choose. That's not how it works. If they can violate Tsarnaev's rights, they can violate anyone's rights.

 

I mean, he could call the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to testify on his behalf right now, the Son of God could take the stand and swear Tsarnaev was with Him all of the 15th of April, and a jury would still convict him. It is 100% impossible to give him a trial by an impartial jury, so why not give Tsarnaev every bit of due process he has coming to him. They questioned him un-Mirandized without worrying it would taint a confession because they don't even need it.

I think this issue is like the torture issue. If it saves American lives I am for it.

Because he's an American citizen. He was charged with crimes related to terrorism. If he wasn't an American, then he'd get treated differently. This is the United States; we have laws. Sometimes we don't like them but we do abide by them.

 

Let me ask you something, so you are saying if his brother had survived also and was also taken into custody, his brother (who isn't a citizen of the United States) wouldn't of been given his Miranda rights? While the younger brother would have? I don't think so, I think the Gov't would of screwed up again and would of read both of them their rights.

 

If it smells like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and makes bombs and detonates them like a terrorist they are a terrorist. I don't need a trial to declare them a terrorist, I already know they are. To even talk of them not being labeled a terrorist yet is just silly.

 

Was bin Laden a terrorist? He didn't have a trial with a jury to label him one.

If it smells like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and makes bombs and detonates them like a terrorist they are a terrorist. I don't need a trial to declare them a terrorist, I already know they are. To even talk of them not being labeled a terrorist yet is just silly.

 

Please define, "terrorist".

I'm sorry, but how in the world do justify stripping an AMERICAN CITIZEN of his rights before his trial?

 

Tsarnaev is an American. He committed his crimes in America, was arrested in America, and he will be tried--and almost certainly executed--in America.

 

Would you feel differently if the DOJ had a press conference this afternoon, announcing that they'd discovered a terrorist plot by the NRA to blow up the White House and that the entire leadership of the organization had been detained and sent to Guantanamo Bay? Would you still feel like a charged but not convicted terrorist deserved no rights as an American citizen?

 

We don't get to pick and choose. That's not how it works. If they can violate Tsarnaev's rights, they can violate anyone's rights.

 

I mean, he could call the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to testify on his behalf right now, the Son of God could take the stand and swear Tsarnaev was with Him all of the 15th of April, and a jury would still convict him. It is 100% impossible to give him a trial by an impartial jury, so why not give Tsarnaev every bit of due process he has coming to him. They questioned him un-Mirandized without worrying it would taint a confession because they don't even need it.

 

A terrorist action was made, The "Terrorist" was seen on video with the explosive device and seen at the location of the bomb itself, that is all the proof I need. If he was innocent he wouldn't of been on the run. I have no problem with this scumbag going to Gittmo and being water boarded if you want to know the truth.

 

The second Tsarnaev decided to kill innocent people with a terrorist act he lost all his rights in my opinion. The problem with this country is the kid gloves they use to handle people like that, and is why this country is becoming less and less safe. I'm sure if it was up to the White House he would of got a slap on the wrist and told never to do it again.

 

He should not be tried as a American Citizen who broke a law, he should be tried as a War Criminal plain and simple.

I think this issue is like the torture issue. If it saves American lives I am for it.

First of all, torture didn't save lives.

 

Second, while the public safety exception to his rights under questioning is controversial, it WAS invoked and he WAS questioned under it for 16 hours. At some point, you have to decide that the period is over. If you left it up to the FBI it would never end, which is why I have no problem with judicial oversight in this case. It shouldn't be the FBI's call.

 

I mean, most of the justifications for the erosion of domestic civil liberties since 2001 have included the reminder that Federal judges had oversight of what was going on, like the sealed warrants for wiretapping. If you remove judicial oversight from the equation, it becomes almost impossible to defend the actions to that have taken place.

I'm sure if it was up to the White House he would of got a slap on the wrist and told never to do it again.

Can we have an ignore button?

Let me ask you something, so you are saying if his brother had survived also and was also taken into custody, his brother (who isn't a citizen of the United States) wouldn't of been given his Miranda rights? While the younger brother would have? I don't think so, I think the Gov't would of screwed up again and would of read both of them their rights.

 

If it smells like a terrorist, walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist and makes bombs and detonates them like a terrorist they are a terrorist. I don't need a trial to declare them a terrorist, I already know they are. To even talk of them not being labeled a terrorist yet is just silly.

 

Was bin Laden a terrorist? He didn't have a trial with a jury to label him one.

 

Bin Laden wasn't an American. Wasn't even close. The guy was a terrorist. And I'm not concerned about whether or not you choose to call him a terrorist. What bothers me is your willingness to strip away the rights to which he would otherwise be entitled simply by putting that label on him. It's difficult to take away the rights of an American under the law; the men who wrote the Constitution made darn sure of that... and with good reason.

 

Maybe they would have screwed it up with his brother. I'm not overly concerned about hypotheticals. What concerns me is the casting aside of the United States Constitution when it suits us but wanting to hide behind it when we need its protections.

Please define, "terrorist".

 

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

 

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism

 

 

 

or

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

 

Now for my definition of Terrorism so not to confuse: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Can we have an ignore button?

 

There is one.

Bin Laden wasn't an American. Wasn't even close. The guy was a terrorist. And I'm not concerned about whether or not you choose to call him a terrorist. What bothers me is your willingness to strip away the rights to which he would otherwise be entitled simply by putting that label on him. It's difficult to take away the rights of an American under the law; the men who wrote the Constitution made darn sure of that... and with good reason.

 

Maybe they would have screwed it up with his brother. I'm not overly concerned about hypotheticals. What concerns me is the casting aside of the United States Constitution when it suits us but wanting to hide behind it when we need its protections.

 

His rights were stripped the second those bombs went off.

There is one.

Awesome!