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?

 

I think these guys were terrorists, yes. But I think it's a very slippery slope when you go claiming "terrorism" in order to strip someone of their constitutional rights in defense of the country. So the FBI claims proof that someone is a terrorist and then does not acknowledge their constitutional rights. What happens next when someone is labeled a suspected terrorist by the FBI? Can the FBI start ignoring the constitution because..."well...you know...we are pretty sure that the suspect intends to commit a terrorist act"? What happens if they nab the wrong guy...like Richard Jewell? Wasn't that bombing a terrorist act? In that case, wouldn't the FBI have been justified in ignoring Jewell's Miranda rights since he was the guy the FBI had in custody and was blaming with the responsibility for the bombing?

 

I think a "terrorist" is a title that can only truly be assigned after an admission of guilt and motive. Bin Laden was a terrorist. He admitted to orchestrating the September 11th attacks and ordering them to be carried out.

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?

Actually stopping and thinking what may have happened if the FBI did not question him is even scarier.

They did find out about the plot to bomb Time Square during their initial interview with him.

 

Now think, what if he was part of a larger group (similar to 9/11) where a large group of terrorists were planning several different bombings like the Boston Marathon and Time Square but across the country with the people involved to pull it off? Wouldn't you want to know about that beforehand? OR would you feel better if they didn't find out about such plots just so this guy could lawyer up and not say anything while possibly thousands died during such bombings simply because they weren't allowed to interrogate him.

 

I tend to go by the saying "Better safe than sorry"

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.

Which is why I'm OK with the public safety exception (to a point) but there are some on here who believe that Tsarnaev deserves no rights and shouldn't be tried as an American. That's what I disagree with.

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.

 

Correct. And double jeopardy laws have backfired in the past as well. It's an imperfect world.

Actually stopping and thinking what may have happened if the FBI did not question him is even scarier.

They did find out about the plot to bomb Time Square during their initial interview with him.

 

Now think, what if he was part of a larger group (similar to 9/11) where a large group of terrorists were planning several different bombings like the Boston Marathon and Time Square but across the country with the people involved to pull it off? Wouldn't you want to know about that beforehand? OR would you feel better if they didn't find out about such plots just so this guy could lawyer up and not say anything while possibly thousands died during such bombings simply because they weren't allowed to interrogate him.

 

I tend to go by the saying "Better safe than sorry"

 

I would leave it up to the FBI to extract that information after they read him his Miranda rights.

I think these guys were terrorists, yes. But I think it's a very slippery slope when you go claiming "terrorism" in order to strip someone of their constitutional rights in defense of the country. So the FBI claims proof that someone is a terrorist and then does not acknowledge their constitutional rights. What happens next when someone is labeled a suspected terrorist by the FBI? Can the FBI start ignoring the constitution because..."well...you know...we are pretty sure that the suspect intends to commit a terrorist act"? What happens if they nab the wrong guy...like Richard Jewell? Wasn't that bombing a terrorist act? In that case, wouldn't the FBI have been justified in ignoring Jewell's Miranda rights since he was the guy the FBI had in custody and was blaming with the responsibility for the bombing?

 

I think a "terrorist" is a title that can only truly be assigned after an admission of guilt and motive. Bin Laden was a terrorist. He admitted to orchestrating the September 11th attacks and ordering them to be carried out.

I think you are misunderstanding my feelings on this. I didn't say strip them of their rights. He still will go to trial etc. I never said no trial, or right to defend himself. Never once have I ever said anything of the sort. You and 02Ram for some reason think I believe he should be put in front of a firing squad with no trial. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying let the FBI do what they do to get as much information they can to hopefully save lives and thwart any future attacks that he may know of.

 

Never once said he shouldn't be able to defend himself.

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.

 

Wow.

Which is why I'm OK with the public safety exception (to a point) but there are some on here who believe that Tsarnaev deserves no rights and shouldn't be tried as an American. That's what I disagree with.

 

Could you please quote the post saying he shouldn't be tried?

 

My personal opinion doesn't matter, but I never said he shouldn't have a trial and a chance to defend himself. You really took that assumption on yourself.

Wow.

 

Don't take it too seriously...it's just a jab at what I think about our current administration. It was sarcastic.

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

There are officials that say that it didn't as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree on who is more believable, but I have a problem believing that as leak-prone as the Bush administration was that they have evidence that torture saved lives and it never came out.

 

For the record, Cheney himself walked his claim back that the abusive interrogation techniques themselves produced intelligence that saved lives, retreating to the claim that intelligence came from the program. To me, that's an implicit admission that the intelligence that saved lives came from other interrogation methods.

I would leave it up to the FBI to extract that information after they read him his Miranda rights.

 

You do realize after he is read his Miranda rights he doesn't have to say anything and it will not be held against him right?

I think these guys were terrorists, yes. But I think it's a very slippery slope when you go claiming "terrorism" in order to strip someone of their constitutional rights in defense of the country. So the FBI claims proof that someone is a terrorist and then does not acknowledge their constitutional rights. What happens next when someone is labeled a suspected terrorist by the FBI? Can the FBI start ignoring the constitution because..."well...you know...we are pretty sure that the suspect intends to commit a terrorist act"? What happens if they nab the wrong guy...like Richard Jewell? Wasn't that bombing a terrorist act? In that case, wouldn't the FBI have been justified in ignoring Jewell's Miranda rights since he was the guy the FBI had in custody and was blaming with the responsibility for the bombing?

 

I think a "terrorist" is a title that can only truly be assigned after an admission of guilt and motive. Bin Laden was a terrorist. He admitted to orchestrating the September 11th attacks and ordering them to be carried out.

 

I don't see Richard Jewell as a great example. He was wrongly accused mainly by the media. Based on what I've read, information leaked that he was a suspect with the FBI and the media apparently ran with it. Jewell sued his former employer for allegedly providing the FBI with false information. They have to follow up on all leads/suspects. And it doesn't bother me if they use a public safety exception as long as they are using it the way it is intended.

 

You all seem to ignore the fact that the exception clearly states,

 

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.

 

Therefore if a judge later discovered that the questioning didn't match what this exception allows, those statements would probably be kept out of court if the person is ever charged.

There are officials that say that it didn't as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree on who is more believable, but I have a problem believing that as leak-prone as the Bush administration was that they have evidence that torture saved lives and it never came out.

 

For the record, Cheney himself walked his claim back that the abusive interrogation techniques themselves produced intelligence that saved lives, retreating to the claim that intelligence came from the program. To me, that's an implicit admission that the intelligence that saved lives came from other interrogation methods.

 

Well seeing how over 60 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11 I find it hard to believe that none of that information came from prisoners at Gittmo.

I don't see Richard Jewell as a great example. He was wrongly accused mainly by the media. Based on what I've read, information leaked that he was a suspect with the FBI and the media apparently ran with it. Jewell sued his former employer for allegedly providing the FBI with false information. They have to follow up on all leads/suspects. And it doesn't bother me if they use a public safety exception as long as they are using it the way it is intended.

 

You all seem to ignore the fact that the exception clearly states,

 

 

 

Therefore if a judge later discovered that the questioning didn't match what this exception allows, those statements would probably be kept out of court if the person is ever charged.

I'm not ignoring it. See my response above.

I don't see Richard Jewell as a great example. He was wrongly accused mainly by the media. Based on what I've read, information leaked that he was a suspect with the FBI and the media apparently ran with it. Jewell sued his former employer for allegedly providing the FBI with false information. They have to follow up on all leads/suspects. And it doesn't bother me if they use a public safety exception as long as they are using it the way it is intended.

 

You all seem to ignore the fact that the exception clearly states,

 

 

 

Therefore if a judge later discovered that the questioning didn't match what this exception allows, those statements would probably be kept out of court if the person is ever charged.

 

Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner. You are right, they are ignoring the part you highlighted.