The rule of law is supposed to protect the innocent.

[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.

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 .

Please take this as no offense but you are totally full of s..t. As crazy as they can be no Navy SEAL would do such a thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You understand me perfectly, but you don't accept the government is our representative for We the People through our leges and courts. The weakness of libertarianism, of course, is that it is nothing more than "don't tax us or we will cry."

We are a constitutional republic that relies on our laws. That some laws may be ones with which we disagree is the price for freedom and liberty.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

We do not, nor have we ever, allowed public opinion decide guilt or innocence. If that is your stance, then why should we bother with the entire justice system? Or why bother with our rights at all?

He may be guilty. The system will determine that and the laws will then determine punishment. That is how it works. THAT is My feelings on it.

 

[Freewill]

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.

There was a third one I posted later. Actually I didn't think you would accept a Blaze link or a Alex Jones link (although I don't know who the latter is). So for liberals what could be better then the Huffington post?

If you think that there is no problem with denying any one their rights. Then I am not sure how you can be outraged about anything that went on in Boston.

 

[AmyNation]

I don't understand the issue with giving the man the same basic rights all Americans accused of a crime are granted? He commited a crime, he goes through due process and we show the world that our Justice system works. We don't toss out rights based on the crime a person commits.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Why do you hate the Constitution? As a U.S. citizen, he has a "right" to a fair trial. Timothy McVeigh had a fair trial.

Oh shut the fuck up, you have several times on here flat out said the consitution has no meaning and was written in a different time, so dont you dare ssay that you fucktard

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you hate the Constitution? As a U.S. citizen, he has a "right" to a fair trial. Timothy McVeigh had a fair trial.

Oh shut the fuck up, you have several times on here flat out said the consitution has no meaning and was written in a different time, so dont you dare ssay that you fucktard

Mind your language, witless one. No one here has said the Constitution has no meaning, other than the libertarians.

 

[bendog]

All this Miranda stuff is fluff. The right to counsel attaches when the cops move from investigating a guy as a suspect to preparing the case against him. I think we can assume that occurred when the cops decided the guy in the boat was the same guy they shot it out with the night before.

But Mranda doesn't actually give you any rights, or apply in this case, and it's just Lindsey Graham grandstanding. The cops can ignore Miranda, which only means they have to tell you that you can not answer questions during the investigatory phase, before the right to counsel attaches, without an attorney. If the cops do ignore Miranda, the only result is a confession, and any information gained from the questioning, cannot be admitted at trial. The govt can still introduce evidence that is totally seperate from any statment the guy may make, or has made. In this case, he shot at the cops, plus I'd guess his home has some interesting bomb stuff. They questioned the hell out of him, and that's the way it works. Lindsey Graham just needs a firm protate massage.

This guy's toast. The govt gave him an initial appearance before a judge yesterday. They have to do that about 72 hours post arrest, and it seems they did just that. His date for a perliminary hearing is set. Federal public defenders have already been assigned.

 

[kaz]

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.

You understand me perfectly, but you don't accept the government is our representative for We the People through our leges and courts. The weakness of libertarianism, of course, is that it is nothing more than "don't tax us or we will cry."

We are a constitutional republic that relies on our laws. That some laws may be ones with which we disagree is the price for freedom and liberty.

Your only understanding of libertarianism are Democratic caricatures of it. Though in fairness that's all you understand about life in general. Actually in a libertarian system, there would be an attempt to make the victim whole. So for a theft, if the victim had it the government would include the criminal repaying the victim from their assets or future wages, that sort of thing.

The clearest example of the ridiculousness of your naive view that government is representing the victim is the rape example I gave before. Government actually victimizes the victim again and they get nothing. If you believe that's representing her interests, just keep repeating your baa mantra until you drown me out again.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Reports are now his lawyer has said NO MORE INFO will be given unless the death penalty has been taken off the table.

Essentially the terrorist has the power again.

Fuck him. Try him and string his ass up in the town square

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You understand me perfectly, but you don't accept the government is our representative for We the People through our leges and courts. The weakness of libertarianism, of course, is that it is nothing more than "don't tax us or we will cry."

We are a constitutional republic that relies on our laws. That some laws may be ones with which we disagree is the price for freedom and liberty.

Your only understanding of libertarianism are Democratic caricatures of it. Though in fairness that's all you understand about life in general. Actually in a libertarian system, there would be an attempt to make the victim whole. So for a theft, if the victim had it the government would include the criminal repaying the victim from their assets or future wages, that sort of thing.

The clearest example of the ridiculousness of your naive view that government is representing the victim is the rape example I gave before. Government actually victimizes the victim again and they get nothing. If you believe that's representing her interests, just keep repeating your baa mantra until you drown me out again.

Nonsense. I am mainstream Republican, out of which you swim upstream in a diminishing libertarian current. Your examples are null, because fines and restitution are often made part of the judgement against a convicted accused.

If you think that a libertarian government would protect essential liberties, then you are very naive about the nature of humans their society. The true libertarian is as delusional as the true Communist, both on the opposites of the same coin.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Remember when some on the left were demanding that our troops read the Miranda warnings to AQ caught on the battle field in Afghanistan and Iraq?

And that those same people were eligable for U.S. Criminal Court trials and not military tribunals...

That those people were to be afforded all the protections of the Constitution?


I guess they have changed their minds now that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[Freewill]

I was reading that the Ricin guy that was arrested has been released, seems he might have been framed. That is the reason we set the bar high in our civil rights.

 

[dblack]

I was reading that the Ricin guy that was arrested has been released, seems he might have been framed. That is the reason we set the bar high in our civil rights.

Good thing the torture fans didn't get their hands on him first.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Rule of law should apply to everyone equally. It won't work any other way.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Remember when some on the left were demanding that our troops read the Miranda warnings to AQ caught on the battle field in Afghanistan and Iraq?

And that those same people were eligable for U.S. Criminal Court trials and not military tribunals...

That those people were to be afforded all the protections of the Constitution?


I guess they have changed their minds now that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office.

Afghanistan? We were fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan while going after al qaeda. Why are you so afraid and obsessed with al qaeda? They are not all that powerful

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You understand me perfectly, but you don't accept the government is our representative for We the People through our leges and courts. The weakness of libertarianism, of course, is that it is nothing more than "don't tax us or we will cry."

We are a constitutional republic that relies on our laws. That some laws may be ones with which we disagree is the price for freedom and liberty.

Your only understanding of libertarianism are Democratic caricatures of it. Though in fairness that's all you understand about life in general. Actually in a libertarian system, there would be an attempt to make the victim whole. So for a theft, if the victim had it the government would include the criminal repaying the victim from their assets or future wages, that sort of thing.

The clearest example of the ridiculousness of your naive view that government is representing the victim is the rape example I gave before. Government actually victimizes the victim again and they get nothing. If you believe that's representing her interests, just keep repeating your baa mantra until you drown me out again.

Nonsense. I am mainstream Republican, out of which you swim upstream in a diminishing libertarian current. Your examples are null, because fines and restitution are often made part of the judgement against a convicted accused.

If you think that a libertarian government would protect essential liberties, then you are very naive about the nature of humans their society. The true libertarian is as delusional as the true Communist, both on the opposites of the same coin.

A Libertarian government?

 

[kaz]

Nonsense. I am mainstream Republican

And I'm Mary Poppins

 

[kaz]

If you think that a libertarian government would protect essential liberties, then you are very naive about the nature of humans their society. The true libertarian is as delusional as the true Communist, both on the opposites of the same coin.

A Libertarian government?

Another libertarians are Republicans or we're anarchists post. Thanks for that bit of inanity. We're neither. Unlike Republicans we're against the unchecked growth of government, government owning our bodies and foreign military use that don't directly involve protecting our borders.

However, here's a hint. If I were an anarchist, I'd call myself an anarchist. I argue with them because they're idiots advocating no government and in their fantasy world thinking that would lead to anything but despotic tyranny. Libertarians actually generally support defense, police, courts, roads, taxes and other areas of government that don't involve government controlling our lives when we're not harming anyone and we're against redistribution of income. We think government should be minimized, not eliminated. There's a world of difference.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since he got his US citizenship under false pretenses, he should have had it revoked by now.