Andy9o8

No, in an open, "democratic" society with a free press vital to keeping the public informed, those anonymous sources must exist, they must be cultivated, and they must be quoted. Frankly, that's always been the case ever since mass public issue journalism has existed, and that's been for a very, very long time. Where I agree with you is where the 24 hour constant news cycle results in the instant quoting of those sources without verification from another source before it's published/broadcast. That clearly results not only in inaccurate information being broadcast, but sometimes (as in Boston) innocent people's lives and reputations being damaged; and that's deplorable. 30 or 40 years ago, prior to 24 hour TV and internet news, news editors in most Western countries would never have permitted that.

In the US: Probably not (to both questions). If there are any state or local laws to that effect (I don't know of any), I don't see how they'd be upheld as constitutional if challenged, especially in federal court.

So far, that's exactly how it's going down. Maybe not. For example, it's already being widely reported that the authorities may consider applying the post 9/11 "exceptions" to Miranda warnings & protections. In view of the immediate public debate and scrutiny that has generated, we'll see how that actually goes down once Tsarnaev is well enough to communicate.

You don't know what you're talking about.

You dog.

Unless you count judges as politicians (in NC they are elected). I looked at the case blurbs in the page you linked. More intellectual dishonesty from judges in criminal cases. When I was a new attorney, at first I was surprised by its prevalence, then I was dismayed by it, then I was disgusted by it, then I became jaded by it. Now I've just come to acknowledge it as part of the corruption that is a side effect of governance. It's also the reason why when I was a newbie I aspired to be a judge; but now, you couldn't get me to don a robe at the point of a gun.

No, he was investigated because the Russians claimed they thought he might have links to terrorists. From what I've heard/read so far, the FBI found no substantiation for the Russians' claimed suspicion at that time. See the difference between the way you phrased it and the way I did? Anyhow, did the Russians really suspect him of that, or were they engaging in tactics to intimidate not only him, but the Chechen diaspora community beyond the reach of their jurisdiction? After all, polonium micro-pellets don't come cheap; you can't use them on every seditious troublemaker on foreign soil, just the noisiest ones.

I get a headache trying to figure out what the hell most of your posts are talking about.

Why "especially"? Isn't that the point of every f***g gun thread here, that no part of the Constitution should have an "especially"?

Did they not realize the legal mischief they caused themselves by including the word "unusual"? I'd think a handgun, for example, would not qualify as unusual in NC. Oh well; so much for carrying my samurai sword around downtown Raleigh. Who'da known?

They also violate the Constitution, putting the word out that this country is a big fat hypocrite when it comes to adhering to its own rule of law. I suggest that since you are vocally in favor of protecting part of the Constitution, you should be in favor of protecting all of it.

Severity of charges is immaterial to the narrow issue. The detainee is either a crminal defendant in civilian court, or he's a POW.

Same answer. Prosecute him in civilian court(s) for whatever criminal violations, state and/or federal, his acts constitute.

What web site?

When somebody who has military experience, lots and lots of guns, and a pathological obsession with discussing gun politics with extreme stridency acts out his anger at being expelled from an online forum by creating repeatedly sock puppets, spoofing the names of real people, some of whom are now deceased, and using them to issue veiled threats. I'd say: yeah, that person has tipped.

Sometimes the Supreme Court rules shamefully, reflecting the emotions of the times. The Quirin case was one of those times. They should have been tried for espionage in civilian court. (@Kennedy: all espionage is presumably on behalf and/or at the direction of another country. Doesn't make a difference, IMPO.) Under US jurisdiction, there is no legitimate excuse for trying civilians by military tribunals, but there is a reason, and it's always the same reason: because they're afraid that a conviction might not be as guaranteed in a civilian court than in a military one. Oh, they'll couch it in terms of protecting the secrecy of classified evidence. It's bullshit. It's happened before, and if you live long enough, you'll see it happened again. Don't be suckered by it.

Same as an anarchist 100 years ago. Hope that helps.

Ah, well, thanks for at least not calling me a "fagbag" again like you did in that first post you just deleted.

I've wondered about that, too. I don't know the way it actually went down, but legally I think there's a pretty fair argument that the immediate exigency of the situation probably made either consent or a warrant unnecessary, at least w/i a certain perimeter, for a certain time period. Obviously some grey area there. Andy "eh, what do I know?" 9o8

A group can only regulate itself.

Assuming the detainee is exclusively subject to US jurisdiction, and not the jurisdiction of another sovereign nation, either (a) or (b). There is no "neither"; there is no "something else". If one is foreclosed, then by the simple definition of process-of-elimination, it must be the other. Period.

As I told you (in response to your asking me) in another thread just a few days ago, this is exactly the kind of trolling - deliberately getting personal with (and misrepresenting) someone, not just to misdirect the subject, but to provoke them to an angry or defensive response - that really, really, really makes practically every single person here utterly sick of your shit. You apparently haven't even made a single skydive, yet here you are. (That's the truth, I promi5e!). And you have just come off a banning for your chronic, deliberate misbehavior. When are you going to get the message?

I don't even think "enemy combatants" should be treated as "enemy combatants". Assuming they're subject to US jurisdiction, they're either (a) criminal defendants subject to the jurisdiction of the civilian criminal courts, and accorded all thus-applicable Constitutional rights, or they're (b) prisoners of war, subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. IMPO, having either studied, practiced or taught US Constitutional law for over 30 years, there is no 3rd category" called "enemy combatant" cognizable under the US Constitution. It is a fiction, created originally by the Bush Administration after 9/11 (and maintained by the Obama Admin), to deliberately evade both the US Constitution and the Geneva Convention. Shame on any and every US lawyer or judge who professionally opines, rules, legislates or executive-orders otherwise. They're not worthy of their licenses to practice law.

You're quite the keyboard commando. And that takes some real bravery.

Twardo, you're 75 posts away from 30,000. One of these days, someone should show you how it works..........