Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
QuoteSo you're suggesting that to give Tsarnaev due process would result in him getting actual due process.
I think this is exactly what 'some' people hate. they are so outraged and addicted to their adrenaline and outrage that they want to take away his rights.
It's a little clue here - under due process and when found guilty....THAT'S the point where the rights can be removed. Not before.
It's a simple concept that: 1 - protects us all, and also; 2 - makes sure the guilty also get identified and dealt with
The misconception that due process is intended to protect the guilty is a false assumption.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Kennedy 0
Quote[Reply]On the contrary, trying Jihadists in a civil court is just what islamic jihadists would like. There are billions of dollars in middle eastern banks on American soil available to "indefinitely" defend soldiers of allah. The muslim brotherhood or other "peaceful" muslims have their own lawyers. They would love to use our system against us in lawsuits and delays.
So you're suggesting that to give Tsarnaev due process would result in him getting actual due process. Jeez. Isn't that like objecting to having sex because it gives you run the risk of having sex with Kate Upton?
Excellent analogy. I'll have to remember that one!
Besides, the military trial of the blind sheik was a fucking circus. Most of the nonsense there would never have happened in federal court.
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Skyrad 0
QuoteQuoteI am thankful every single day that the Democrats are perfect and selfless and never do anything just for PR effect and votes.
Quite a leap, Col. von Assumptions.
I was just pointing out that the it's the Republican that are, largely, on the wrong side of this one. The Democrats have their own hypocrisies. They're especially lax on unicorm regulation and rainbow registration.
Jaysus, Guys is there no subject in SC that is free of the pathetic Rep Vs Dem bickering,
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Andy9o8 0
QuoteJaysus, Guys is there no subject in SC that is free of the pathetic Rep Vs Dem bickering,
They even bicker about Jaysus.
champu 1
QuoteI find it refreshing to see so many of us, regardless of political affiliations, agreeing on this topic. Seems to me that the majority, here at least, believe in due process and are against the idea of an 'enemy combatant' or at least (better stated) against the idea of stripping away rights and due process for ANY reason
While I do agree with Andy regarding his statements about people being either a suspect of a crime or a POW if exclusively subject to US jurisdiction, he's not addressing the full scope of the "enemy combatant" designation in his statements. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps not.
His statement certainly addresses anyone in the custody of the United States or an entity thereof though, and that's where I agree with him. It's not without its problems, however, because the very nature of the conflict stands some of the provisions in the Third Geneva Convention on its head. For example the provision that prisoners of war be released at the end of hostilities.
DanG 1
QuoteLet's run off the jurisdictions involved in this:
(1) City of Boston - Mayor benino (D)
(2) County of Suffolk - Sheriff Andrea Cabral (D)
(3) State of Massachusetts - Governor Deval Patrick (D)
(4) Unites States: President Barack Obama (D)
Now - all it takes is ONE of those government agencies to ensure the protection of the suspect's rights. I cannot see how anyone can credibly argue right-wing involvement in the administration of law enforcement in this.
With regard to future policies - yep, the GOP is using this to attack immigration the same way the Dems use incidents to attack guns. Between the GOP and Dems, we have a full assault on everything.
Well, apparently those nasty Democrats you named are ensuring his rights. Does that make you mad? Do you want the Tea Party to somehow get credit?
I don't know why you had to bring up the Tea Party if you weren't trying to make it partisan.
All of the people calling for torture, redition, and loss of the suspect's rights that I've heard have been Republicans. Just saying.
- Dan G
DanG 1
QuoteMcVeigh had no connection to any foreign movement we are at war with.
Do you know something the rest of us don't? Do you have evidence that the brothers were acting on behalf of a foreign government/entity? Do you realize that the brother in custody is a US citizen, just like McVeigh? Or do you think he should lose his rights because he's not a Christian?
- Dan G
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteI find it refreshing to see so many of us, regardless of political affiliations, agreeing on this topic. Seems to me that the majority, here at least, believe in due process and are against the idea of an 'enemy combatant' or at least (better stated) against the idea of stripping away rights and due process for ANY reason
While I do agree with Andy regarding his statements about people being either a suspect of a crime or a POW if exclusively subject to US jurisdiction, he's not addressing the full scope of the "enemy combatant" designation in his statements. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps not.
His statement certainly addresses anyone in the custody of the United States or an entity thereof though, and that's where I agree with him. It's not without its problems, however, because the very nature of the conflict stands some of the provisions in the Third Geneva Convention on its head. For example the provision that prisoners of war be released at the end of hostilities.
Nothing cagey intended. I used the term to avoid cluttering the discussion with 3rd-country jurisdiction.
If the US has someone in custody and wants to keep them there, they're either criminal defendants or POWs. But if the US wants to relinquish physical custody, it can remand the detainee to the custody of a 3rd county whose laws the detainee is alleged to have violated. In fact, the US does this to allow the 3rd country to torture the detainee, nominally w/o violating US law - it's called "extraordinary rendition".
Under other circumstances, the US could turn the detainee over to the 3rd country for criminal prosecution if that country has an extradition treaty w/the US, and a US court orders such extradition. The practice of extraordinary rendition is yet another Bush-era end-around giving the detainee the benefit of a judicial extradition hearing with due process of law. Disgraceful, if you ask me, but nobody in govt generally asks me (unless I'm standing in front of a judge).
champu 1
Andy9o8 0
QuoteWhen I said "full scope of the enemy combatant designation" I was alluding to situations where the person in question is never brought into the custody of the US in the first place.
Oh, OK. I wasn't using "enemy combatant" in, say, the "target of a drone in Pakistan" sense; I was using it strictly in the sense of a detainee in US physical custody.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
ryoder 1,394
QuoteRight - they are actually making sure that he's being given civil court treatment. Meanwhile he's apparently quite cooperative. Which puts me on edge about whether he has requested counsel...
I'm not surprised he is cooperative, now that older brother no longer has any influence. I'll bet he sings like a canary.
Now here is a crazy thought: Suppose running over his brother wasn't really an accident. What if he came to the realization that his brother had pulled him into something that had just ruined his life?
You can all stop debating how they "should be" handled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22257451#TWEET731151
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites