The rule of law is supposed to protect the innocent.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Grampa,

I can understand your frustration at this.

There is part of me that wants to see him drawn and quartered and then fed to the pigs.

But that is not what we do here.

I have had others argue that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

That is when I ask, Where do we draw the line? Who, Which American Citizens, are afforded the protections of the Constitution.

I do want you to notice that I specify "American Citizens". I don't believe that those who are here illegally, entered the country illegally, are to be afforded the protections of the Constitution or the right and privileges of those who are here legally.

Just as you treat an invited guest into your home differently than you treat someone who broke into your home.

I hear ya...

If the gov't let's him plea to life or not seek death to begin with I will be stunned. We afford too many luxuries to terrorists. There is no deterrent

 

[Lakhota]

The rule of law is supposed to protect the innocent.

Generally, it does. Sure, the kid appears guilty - but how do we know for a "fact" that he isn't innocent until he is given a fair trial? I'm sure as hell not going to take the media's word for it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The rule of law is supposed to protect the innocent.

Generally, it does. Sure, the kid appears guilty - but how do we know for a "fact" that he isn't innocent until he is given a fair trial? I'm sure as hell not going to take the media's word for it.

The media didn't put him in that car. The media didn't pull the trigger. The media didn't throw the bombs. The media didn't put him in that boat.

Do you utilize your brain when you watch or read the media?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Grampa,

I can understand your frustration at this.

There is part of me that wants to see him drawn and quartered and then fed to the pigs.

But that is not what we do here.

I have had others argue that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

That is when I ask, Where do we draw the line? Who, Which American Citizens, are afforded the protections of the Constitution.

I do want you to notice that I specify "American Citizens". I don't believe that those who are here illegally, entered the country illegally, are to be afforded the protections of the Constitution or the right and privileges of those who are here legally.

Just as you treat an invited guest into your home differently than you treat someone who broke into your home.

I hear ya...

If the gov't let's him plea to life or not seek death to begin with I will be stunned. We afford too many luxuries to terrorists. There is no deterrent

I think they will if he gives plenty of evidence against others who were in the planning stages of the bombing.

If not, there is a needle with his name on it.

 

[whitehall]

Too much information gramps. According to the Constitution we are all innocent until proven guilty even if we are shot full of holes and video taped from every angle. The federal government doesn't get to determine if you are a terrorist and should be executed with a drone fired rocket or your alleged crimes give the government the right to terminate your access to the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

The law is only perverted when we allow people like you anywhere near it

 

[Freewill]

Grampa,

I can understand your frustration at this.

There is part of me that wants to see him drawn and quartered and then fed to the pigs.

But that is not what we do here.

I have had others argue that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

That is when I ask, Where do we draw the line? Who, Which American Citizens, are afforded the protections of the Constitution.

I do want you to notice that I specify "American Citizens". I don't believe that those who are here illegally, entered the country illegally, are to be afforded the protections of the Constitution or the right and privileges of those who are here legally.

Just as you treat an invited guest into your home differently than you treat someone who broke into your home.

I hear ya...

If the gov't let's him plea to life or not seek death to begin with I will be stunned. We afford too many luxuries to terrorists. There is no deterrent

Did he commit a federal crime? If not then Mass. does not have the death penalty.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

Not to be mean but you don't know shit until evidence comes out in a fair trial. Then once he's convicted, we can hang him and remove this piece of shit from the mortal world. But our rule of law and our rights is what separates us from these animals.

 

[ClosedCaption]

He is an American! Surely that must mean something to you flag-waving Constitutionalists.

They abandon all that when they get scared. Thank god for orgs like the ACLU

 

[thomasrivera]

I like the capitalism "bargaining" strategy of you lose your rights when you do this, or if you do that, then you exchange your freedoms. The law is not founded on a capitalistic "exchange" mentality.

 

[Freewill]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

Not to be mean but you don't know shit until evidence comes out in a fair trial. Then once he's convicted, we can hang him and remove this piece of shit from the mortal world. But our rule of law and our rights is what separates us from these animals.

I think Gramps is arguing that those rights are limited. One limit being a terrorist. I disagree and have been very consistent. I don't believe the government should be killing folks without trial or at least grand jury. Some judicial oversight is needed, in my opinion. That is why I have been consistent in bring up the 16 year old boy killed who was an American and who was not a terrorist whose only apparent crime was his dad was a ahole Imam, who had been killed in the same fashion. So I think we need a little consistence in how we view our rights.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why do you hate the Constitution?

He didn't say he hated the Constitution. He said he hated the "Mirandizing" process - that is, the cops turning ionto schooteachers and having to EXPLAIN the guy's constitutional rights to him.

Which, if you'll look, you'll find is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution spells out the rights, of course, and I fully agree that EVERY accused person (including the Boston Marathon bomber) must have those rights.

But to expect the cops to become schooteachers, on pain of having the truth thrown out of court because they fully respected and upheld a suspect's rights but didn't give him an EXPLANATION of them, is ludicrous.

In that, I fully agree with him.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

Not to be mean but you don't know shit until evidence comes out in a fair trial. Then once he's convicted, we can hang him and remove this piece of shit from the mortal world. But our rule of law and our rights is what separates us from these animals.

I think Gramps is arguing that those rights are limited. One limit being a terrorist. I disagree and have been very consistent. I don't believe the government should be killing folks without trial or at least grand jury. Some judicial oversight is needed, in my opinion. That is why I have been consistent in bring up the 16 year old boy killed who was an American and who was not a terrorist whose only apparent crime was his dad was a ahole Imam, who had been killed in the same fashion. So I think we need a little consistence in how we view our rights.

I don't know the story you're citing but if my understanding is correct you're going off into something that has nothing to do with this. But basically you're upset that a 16-year old kid got whacked because his father was a terrorist? My initial reaction is tough tits. It's like the chick who had her brains blown out because she in Osama's mansion when the SEAL team went in. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who consort with terrorists and people who murder innocent people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

The law is supposed to protect the accused.

 

[blackcherry]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

Quite the opposite is true .I t was Navy Seals and members of The Craft who planted the bombs --- see any amount of videos .
There is not a shred of evidence against the brothers other than you swallowing what you were told by the mainstrea media , courtesy of the FBI .

 

[kaz]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

Actually, protecting the guilty is the basis of our legal system. All crimes are committed against the State. The victim legally is just a witness. What is committed against the victim was a civil crime, that is what they can get damages for. So, in criminal court, all protections are for the accused to be defended against the accuser, which is government.

The problems with that is that as we all know rape victims for example are the ones put on trial. They are witnesses, it's the right of the defense to do that. And the only recourse for civil suits is generally money, which is useless for a victim who doesn't have any. Our whole legal system needs an overhaul.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

Actually, protecting the guilty is the basis of our legal system. All crimes are committed against the State. The victim legally is just a witness. What is committed against the victim was a civil crime, that is what they can get damages for. So, in criminal court, all protections are for the accused to be defended against the accuser, which is government.

The problems with that is that as we all know rape victims for example are the ones put on trial. They are witnesses, it's the right of the defense to do that. And the only recourse for civil suits is generally money, which is useless for a victim who doesn't have any. Our whole legal system needs an overhaul.

We the People (you and me, kaz) and represented for us by the stte

 

[kaz]

Yet it's been perverted to where it protects the guilty. Mirandizing a terrorist who we KNOW is a terrorist and was caught in the act.

I understand it's a tricky situation but those are my feeling on it.

Actually, protecting the guilty is the basis of our legal system. All crimes are committed against the State. The victim legally is just a witness. What is committed against the victim was a civil crime, that is what they can get damages for. So, in criminal court, all protections are for the accused to be defended against the accuser, which is government.

The problems with that is that as we all know rape victims for example are the ones put on trial. They are witnesses, it's the right of the defense to do that. And the only recourse for civil suits is generally money, which is useless for a victim who doesn't have any. Our whole legal system needs an overhaul.

We the People (you and me, kaz) and represented for us by the stte

If I understand you correctly, and I'm not sure I do so clarify if I don't, you are saying in charging criminals with crimes the State is "representing" us. I don't see how in any way they are doing that since nothing is done on our behalf except potentially locking up the criminal.

 

[Freewill]

Not to be mean but you don't know shit until evidence comes out in a fair trial. Then once he's convicted, we can hang him and remove this piece of shit from the mortal world. But our rule of law and our rights is what separates us from these animals.

I think Gramps is arguing that those rights are limited. One limit being a terrorist. I disagree and have been very consistent. I don't believe the government should be killing folks without trial or at least grand jury. Some judicial oversight is needed, in my opinion. That is why I have been consistent in bring up the 16 year old boy killed who was an American and who was not a terrorist whose only apparent crime was his dad was a ahole Imam, who had been killed in the same fashion. So I think we need a little consistence in how we view our rights.

I don't know the story you're citing but if my understanding is correct you're going off into something that has nothing to do with this. But basically you're upset that a 16-year old kid got whacked because his father was a terrorist? My initial reaction is tough tits. It's like the chick who had her brains blown out because she in Osama's mansion when the SEAL team went in. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who consort with terrorists and people who murder innocent people.

Your not knowing of the story is EXACTLY the problem. If more people knew I think that outrage would be on both sides of the aisle. In my opinion it has everything to do with the OP. We are talking about rights, and in my opinion the 16 year old boy that was killed by Hellfire was denied his rights just like the OP wants to do concerning Miranda. So now the liberal left is buying into the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality. I guess you are just a Biblical kind of guy and want to wipe out all generations of a man. I spent a good part of my life protecting the "rights" of those I thought really deservant of the punishment they were getting. I did it because I didn't want the bar raised to my level. So protecting the rights of those we think are aholes protects the rights of ourselves.

Any way, here is the Huffington post's opinion on the US drone program. A 16 year old boy who wasn't a terrorist, whose father was already dead for two weeks, and was and American was killed by drone, I am not sorry that just ain't right.

Cenk Uygur: The 3 Real Problems With Drone Strikes

1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial.

2. Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing.

3. We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I think Gramps is arguing that those rights are limited. One limit being a terrorist. I disagree and have been very consistent. I don't believe the government should be killing folks without trial or at least grand jury. Some judicial oversight is needed, in my opinion. That is why I have been consistent in bring up the 16 year old boy killed who was an American and who was not a terrorist whose only apparent crime was his dad was a ahole Imam, who had been killed in the same fashion. So I think we need a little consistence in how we view our rights.

I don't know the story you're citing but if my understanding is correct you're going off into something that has nothing to do with this. But basically you're upset that a 16-year old kid got whacked because his father was a terrorist? My initial reaction is tough tits. It's like the chick who had her brains blown out because she in Osama's mansion when the SEAL team went in. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who consort with terrorists and people who murder innocent people.

Your not knowing of the story is EXACTLY the problem. If more people knew I think that outrage would be on both sides of the aisle. In my opinion it has everything to do with the OP. We are talking about rights, and in my opinion the 16 year old boy that was killed by Hellfire was denied his rights just like the OP wants to do concerning Miranda. So now the liberal left is buying into the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality. I guess you are just a Biblical kind of guy and want to wipe out all generations of a man. I spent a good part of my life protecting the "rights" of those I thought really deservant of the punishment they were getting. I did it because I didn't want the bar raised to my level. So protecting the rights of those we think are aholes protects the rights of ourselves.

Any way, here is the Huffington post's opinion on the US drone program. A 16 year old boy who wasn't a terrorist, whose father was already dead for two weeks, and was and American was killed by drone, I am not sorry that just ain't right.

Cenk Uygur: The 3 Real Problems With Drone Strikes

1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial.

2. Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing.

Well none of that has anything to do with the initial story and I still say tough tits. Also, it's amusing to me you think I'm a leader of "DA LIBERAL CONSPIRACYZZZ" when you cite a liberal source and a huge lib to make your points.