First of all, torture didn't save lives.

 

That was all I needed to read from your post. I don't think you could be more wrong.

 

John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, claims information obtained from inmates at the camp has proved vital in thwarting a series of terror attacks around the world, including in Britain.

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

 

So anyone who kills someone for a political goal is a terrorist?

Awesome!

 

 

At what point does a murderer become a terrorist? What is required?

 

Id say when they use a bomb to kill and injure as many random people as possible.

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.

That last sentence is pretty ironic if you are a Liberal who agrees with the President when he says it's ok to kill Americans with drone attacks if he thinks they are terrorist.

 

Pretty interesting.

So anyone who kills someone for a political goal is a terrorist?

 

Yes. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

Yes. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

 

So all of the country's founding fathers were terrorists?

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 was under the impression that there is a time limit on the public safety exception, and it was 48 hours. No one is saying the FBI should be able to just hold him forever and no one said it was their call as to how long they can. It's already been settled that they could do it for 48 hours.

Let me repeat this question:

 

Richard Jewell was innocent. Should he have lost his rights as an American for being a suspected terrorist?

 

Steven Hatfill (the original suspect in the anthrax letters case) was innocent. Should he have lost his rights as an American for being a suspected terrorist?

 

If the DOJ accuses your neighbor of being a terrorist, should they lose their rights as an American?

 

What about if they accuse you?

So all of the country's founding fathers were terrorists?

The forefathers defended this country. They didn't sail to England and attack Great Britain.

 

So you don't think these guys were terrorist? You think they were just out for some kicks?

 

I answered your question, let me ask you now, what is your definition of a terrorist?

First of all, torture didn't save lives.

 

 

Says who? Because there are officials that say it did.

Let me repeat this question:

 

Richard Jewell was innocent. Should he have lost his rights as an American for being a suspected terrorist?

 

Steven Hatfill (the original suspect in the anthrax letters case) was innocent. Should he have lost his rights as an American for being a suspected terrorist?

 

If the DOJ accuses your neighbor of being a terrorist, should they lose their rights as an American?

 

What about if they accuse you?

How many of those you listed killed anyone?

 

HEre is my problem with reading him his rights when they did....the FBI was getting information about future attacks, such as the one that was supposed to take place at Times Square. Now you think getting that information is bad? You'd rather not allow the FBI to finish their questioning first?

He wasn't going anywhere, they could of waited until the FBI was finished with their questioning.

 

I never once said they shouldn't have a trial. War Criminals even get a trial. Richard Jewell wasn't shot on site was he? This kid with the Boston Bombing will stand trial. No one said they shouldn't. You miss the entire point.

Here is what the FBI was doing, and they had every right to do so.

 

federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception regarding his Miranda rights, a senior Justice Department official told ABC News. The exception, according to the FBI‘s website, “permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.”

“Police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights,” according to the FBI.

Richard Jewell was definitely labeled a terrorist after the Centennial Olympic Park Bombing...except he didn't do it.

 

Ever stop to think about what might happen had the wrong person been nabbed? I realize that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is essentially positively the culprit, but suppose he weren't. What do you think he could possibly be coerced into admitting/confessing with a full room of the FBI's absolute top notch guys giving him a full-court press for two days straight?

 

Conversely, without any doubt Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn are admitted and known documents terrorist whose objective was government overthrow. Because in the quest to bring them to justice the FBI and other law enforcement broke laws and used techniques that violated rights. So they were never charged since the evidence would never be allowed in court.

 

To protect the rights of all of us these 2 known terrorists have been allowed to go free. Somewhat ironic that the very Constitution that the Weatherman and Weather Underground wanted to destroy protected them from prosecution.

Let me repeat this question:

 

Richard Jewell was innocent. Should he have lost his rights as an American for being a suspected terrorist?

 

Steven Hatfill (the original suspect in the anthrax letters case) was innocent. Should he have lost his rights as an American for being a suspected terrorist?

 

If the DOJ accuses your neighbor of being a terrorist, should they lose their rights as an American?

 

What about if they accuse you?

 

You realize that there are some exceptions to your rights, correct?

 

For example. Normally law enforcement can not come straight into your house without your permission or a warrant. However, under exigent circumstances they can. If they receive a call of domestic violence at your house, and when they arrive they hear someone screaming for help inside...they do not have to wait outside for your permission or a warrant. They can enter your house.

 

The "public safety exception" isn't all that different IMO. Who knows how many people were helping these guys? Who knows how many bombs they've left around Boston? Did they have other plans? The public safety exception is less about getting a confession and more about finding out if there is anything else out there that is going to kill more americans.