Well, this isn't about the Miranda rights. Per Say.
I would say that this is more about the proposed 5th amendment "circumnavigations"
The idea of labeling him an "enemy combatant" and what that entails, is a complete stripping of constitutional rights, and certain aspects of due process.
0
Well, this isn't about the Miranda rights. Per Say.
I would say that this is more about the proposed 5th amendment "circumnavigations"
The idea of labeling him an "enemy combatant" and what that entails, is a complete stripping of constitutional rights, and certain aspects of due process.
Well, this isn't about the Miranda rights. Per Say.
I would say that this is more about the proposed 5th amendment "circumnavigations"
The idea of labeling him an "enemy combatant" and what that entails, is a complete stripping of constitutional rights, and certain aspects of due process.
In light of watching Zero Dark 30, I can see where you are coming from.
The main question is whether we will be provided counsel at all interrogations if he requests (criminal matter) or if he may be interrogated without counsel (as enemy combatent).
In neither fashion would his statements be usuable against him a court of criminal law.
In the former, he would be entitled to a speedy trial. Not in the latter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Well, this isn't about the Miranda rights. Per Say.
I would say that this is more about the proposed 5th amendment "circumnavigations"
The idea of labeling him an "enemy combatant" and what that entails, is a complete stripping of constitutional rights, and certain aspects of due process.
In light of watching Zero Dark 30, I can see where you are coming from.
The main question is whether we will be provided counsel at all interrogations if he requests (criminal matter) or if he may be interrogated without counsel (as enemy combatent).
In neither fashion would his statements be usuable against him a court of criminal law.
In the former, he would be entitled to a speedy trial. Not in the latter.
I think the question is whether the strength of our convictions will outweigh our fear and vengeance.
It would feel good to not give this guy a trial, call out everyone into Copley Square and string him up from Trinity Church til his feet stop kicking. It would satisfy a very primal desire for retribution and "justice".
We are just better than that. We should know better at this point. We have been through this before, and should have learned the lesson.
Are we really looking at the idea that Obama is going to send an American Citizen to Guantanamo without trial (after he said that he wanted to close it).
Too surreal.
0
I think the question is whether the strength of our convictions will outweigh our fear and vengeance.
It would feel good to not give this guy a trial, call out everyone into Copley Square and string him up from Trinity Church til his feet stop kicking. It would satisfy a very primal desire for retribution and "justice".
We are just better than that. We should know better at this point. We have been through this before, and should have learned the lesson.
Are we really looking at the idea that Obama is going to send an American Citizen to Guantanamo without trial (after he said that he wanted to close it).
I think the question is whether the strength of our convictions will outweigh our fear and vengeance.
It would feel good to not give this guy a trial, call out everyone into Copley Square and string him up from Trinity Church til his feet stop kicking. It would satisfy a very primal desire for retribution and "justice".
We are just better than that. We should know better at this point. We have been through this before, and should have learned the lesson.
Are we really looking at the idea that Obama is going to send an American Citizen to Guantanamo without trial (after he said that he wanted to close it).
Too surreal.
As Kap posted, the White House does not intend to do so, even in the face of Republican pressure.
Thus, I look forward to your defense of Obama from the criticisms of your party.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
I think the question is whether the strength of our convictions will outweigh our fear and vengeance.
It would feel good to not give this guy a trial, call out everyone into Copley Square and string him up from Trinity Church til his feet stop kicking. It would satisfy a very primal desire for retribution and "justice".
We are just better than that. We should know better at this point. We have been through this before, and should have learned the lesson.
Are we really looking at the idea that Obama is going to send an American Citizen to Guantanamo without trial (after he said that he wanted to close it).
Too surreal.
As Kap posted, the White House does not intend to do so, even in the face of Republican pressure.
Thus, I look forward to your defense of Obama from the criticisms of your party.
i think i support the president's drone policy too but i'm not so sure about dispensing with the constitution for peop,e in the US just because this case got a lot of media attention.
0
i think i support the president's drone policy too but i'm not so sure about dispensing with the constitution for peop,e in the US just because this case got a lot of media attention.
it's really not a big deal, the cop reads the form very quickly, tells the guy to sign here, half the time they suspect isn't even listening and then the cops are off and running.
There is a bit more to the process than that. Labeling this dude as an enemy combatant is more strategic than anything because they can now hold him indefinitely without charging him. I don't particularly like the reduced rights for him either, but, I think they want to do a full investigation on the bombings and make sure that other people weren't involved so they can accurately dispense proper charges.
For me personally, I prefer the 'enemy combatant' label for those terrorists that would sooner saw my head off with a dull knife than lend me a cup of sugar.
I'm not saying that my way of thinking is the right way but that's the way I think. DJBROW you're wrong again....Rick is much more constitutional than I am. Does that make me somewhat of a Progressive?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
it's really not a big deal, the cop reads the form very quickly, tells the guy to sign here, half the time they suspect isn't even listening and then the cops are off and running.
There is a bit more to the process than that. Labeling this dude as an enemy combatant is more strategic than anything because they can now hold him indefinitely without charging him. I don't particularly like the reduced rights for him either, but, I think they want to do a full investigation on the bombings and make sure that other people weren't involved so they can accurately dispense proper charges.
For me personally, I prefer the 'enemy combatant' label for those terrorists that would sooner saw my head off with a dull knife than lend me a cup of sugar.
I'm not saying that my way of thinking is the right way but that's the way I think. DJBROW you're wrong again....Rick is much more constitutional than I am. Does that make me somewhat of a Progressive?
Good on the Obama administration for not designating him as an enemy combatant. Reading on another site now that Tsarnaev made his initial appearance before a judge this morning.
0
Good on the Obama administration for not designating him as an enemy combatant. Reading on another site now that Tsarnaev made his initial appearance before a judge this morning.
There is a bit more to the process than that. Labeling this dude as an enemy combatant is more strategic than anything because they can now hold him indefinitely without charging him. I don't particularly like the reduced rights for him either, but, I think they want to do a full investigation on the bombings and make sure that other people weren't involved so they can accurately dispense proper charges.
For me personally, I prefer the 'enemy combatant' label for those terrorists that would sooner saw my head off with a dull knife than lend me a cup of sugar.
I'm not saying that my way of thinking is the right way but that's the way I think. DJBROW you're wrong again....Rick is much more constitutional than I am. Does that make me somewhat of a Progressive?
i'm just talking about the actual reading of the rights. here, it ain't like they do it on tv. half the time, i can hardly figure out what they are saying. it might be different outside of rightwingland where the constitution still may have some application.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
There is a bit more to the process than that. Labeling this dude as an enemy combatant is more strategic than anything because they can now hold him indefinitely without charging him. I don't particularly like the reduced rights for him either, but, I think they want to do a full investigation on the bombings and make sure that other people weren't involved so they can accurately dispense proper charges.
For me personally, I prefer the 'enemy combatant' label for those terrorists that would sooner saw my head off with a dull knife than lend me a cup of sugar.
I'm not saying that my way of thinking is the right way but that's the way I think. DJBROW you're wrong again....Rick is much more constitutional than I am. Does that make me somewhat of a Progressive?
i'm just talking about the actual reading of the rights. here, it ain't like they do it on tv. half the time, i can hardly figure out what they are saying. it might be different outside of rightwingland where the constitution still may have some application.
There is a bit more to the process than that. Labeling this dude as an enemy combatant is more strategic than anything because they can now hold him indefinitely without charging him. I don't particularly like the reduced rights for him either, but, I think they want to do a full investigation on the bombings and make sure that other people weren't involved so they can accurately dispense proper charges.
For me personally, I prefer the 'enemy combatant' label for those terrorists that would sooner saw my head off with a dull knife than lend me a cup of sugar.
I'm not saying that my way of thinking is the right way but that's the way I think. DJBROW you're wrong again....Rick is much more constitutional than I am. Does that make me somewhat of a Progressive?
If your real-life personality is anything like the one on here, I bet a lot more than terrorists would sooner saw your head off with a dull knife than lend you a cup of sugar.
As to your strategic statement...really? No way. Obviously, holding and interrogating a 19 year-old without an attorney present carries strategic implications. That's really all it carries. In the end, any statements made won't be admissible and they likely don't need to be anyway.
By the way, if you are looking to save enemy combatents for 'the real deal' why wouldn't you count men who place bombs in crowded areas?
Just askin'
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
There is a bit more to the process than that. Labeling this dude as an enemy combatant is more strategic than anything because they can now hold him indefinitely without charging him. I don't particularly like the reduced rights for him either, but, I think they want to do a full investigation on the bombings and make sure that other people weren't involved so they can accurately dispense proper charges.
For me personally, I prefer the 'enemy combatant' label for those terrorists that would sooner saw my head off with a dull knife than lend me a cup of sugar.
I'm not saying that my way of thinking is the right way but that's the way I think. DJBROW you're wrong again....Rick is much more constitutional than I am. Does that make me somewhat of a Progressive?
If your real-life personality is anything like the one on here, I bet a lot more than terrorists would sooner saw your head off with a dull knife than lend you a cup of sugar.
As to your strategic statement...really? No way. Obviously, holding and interrogating a 19 year-old without an attorney present carries strategic implications. That's really all it carries. In the end, any statements made won't be admissible and they likely don't need to be anyway.
By the way, if you are looking to save enemy combatents for 'the real deal' why wouldn't you count men who place bombs in crowded areas?
If your real-life personality is anything like the one on here, I bet a lot more than terrorists would sooner saw your head off with a dull knife than lend you a cup of sugar.
As to your strategic statement...really? No way. Obviously, holding and interrogating a 19 year-old without an attorney present carries strategic implications. That's really all it carries. In the end, any statements made won't be admissible and they likely don't need to be anyway.
By the way, if you are looking to save enemy combatents for 'the real deal' why wouldn't you count men who place bombs in crowded areas?
Just askin'
I know if you could you would paint my head off with a really large paint brush.
Regarding your last question. I suspect that the brother likely had multiple chances to do harm to Americans yet may have had a few American acquaintances.
It takes far less hate to drop a concealed bomb in a crowded area than it does to saw a stranger's head off with a non serrated cutting tool. IMHO
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
If your real-life personality is anything like the one on here, I bet a lot more than terrorists would sooner saw your head off with a dull knife than lend you a cup of sugar.
As to your strategic statement...really? No way. Obviously, holding and interrogating a 19 year-old without an attorney present carries strategic implications. That's really all it carries. In the end, any statements made won't be admissible and they likely don't need to be anyway.
By the way, if you are looking to save enemy combatents for 'the real deal' why wouldn't you count men who place bombs in crowded areas?
Just askin'
I know if you could you would paint my head off with a really large paint brush.
Regarding your last question. I suspect that the brother likely had multiple chances to do harm to Americans yet may have had a few American acquaintances.
It takes far less hate to drop a concealed bomb in a crowded area than it does to saw a stranger's head off with a non serrated cutting tool. IMHO
Sorry, That was in response to one of your older posts.
I do not know as much as you but the differences between a civilian and military court have a lot to do with transparency.
Disclosure,
and some of the protections that are afforded to citizens.
Am I correct?
Its tricky and multilayered.
The first question is whether one is considered an unlawful vs. lawful combatant. These were distinguished in Ex Parte Quirin.
When enemy combatants were named under Bush, it was always presumed that enemy combatants were also considered unlawful, which allowed a punishment pursuant to a military tribunal rather than criminal court. In those situations, however, the accused were not American citizens, nor in the country so it remains arguable whether they were ever entitled to constitutional protections anyway.
(Keep in mind, an enemy combatant is labled as such by their affilation with a group who is considered 'at war' with the US)
The USSC in Boumediene v. Bush stated that those being held by the US were entitled to proceedings to determine if they were properly labled and held (also known as habeas proceedings).
It has always been an open question as to whether a US citizen could be labled as an enemy combatant, which effectively would suspend the US Constitutional protections for a citizen.
Military courts do provide counsel (think A Few Good Men) and are subject to many evidentiary rules, but do not have transcripts produced for the public, nor the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard) among other differences.
There is also not an exclusionary rule that is applicable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Sorry, That was in response to one of your older posts.
I do not know as much as you but the differences between a civilian and military court have a lot to do with transparency.
Disclosure,
and some of the protections that are afforded to citizens.
Am I correct?
Its tricky and multilayered.
The first question is whether one is considered an unlawful vs. lawful combatant. These were distinguished in Ex Parte Quirin.
When enemy combatants were named under Bush, it was always presumed that enemy combatants were also considered unlawful, which allowed a punishment pursuant to a military tribunal rather than criminal court. In those situations, however, the accused were not American citizens, nor in the country so it remains arguable whether they were ever entitled to constitutional protections anyway.
(Keep in mind, an enemy combatant is labled as such by their affilation with a group who is considered 'at war' with the US)
The USSC in Boumediene v. Bush stated that those being held by the US were entitled to proceedings to determine if they were properly labled and held (also known as habeas proceedings).
It has always been an open question as to whether a US citizen could be labled as an enemy combatant, which effectively would suspend the US Constitutional protections for a citizen.
Military courts do provide counsel (think A Few Good Men) and are subject to many evidentiary rules, but do not have transcripts produced for the public, nor the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard) among other differences.
There is also not an exclusionary rule that is applicable.
It takes far less hate to drop a concealed bomb in a crowded area than it does to saw a stranger's head off with a non serrated cutting tool. IMHO
oh okay... that makes sense...
but if that is the type of things that go through your mind's eye and imagination it really doesnt help your reputation as the forum's fantasyland, out of touch with reality psychopath...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
It takes far less hate to drop a concealed bomb in a crowded area than it does to saw a stranger's head off with a non serrated cutting tool. IMHO
oh okay... that makes sense...
but if that is the type of things that go through your mind's eye and imagination it really doesnt help your reputation as the forum's fantasyland, out of touch with reality psychopath...
but if that is the type of things that go through your mind's eye and imagination it really doesnt help your reputation as the forum's fantasyland, out of touch with reality psychopath...
So what you're trying to say is that anything that differs from you narrow mindedness is on par with psychopathic thoughts?
Carry on!
At least you can admit to being simple minded.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
oh okay... that makes sense...
but if that is the type of things that go through your mind's eye and imagination it really doesnt help your reputation as the forum's fantasyland, out of touch with reality psychopath...
So what you're trying to say is that anything that differs from you narrow mindedness is on par with psychopathic thoughts?
Good on the Obama administration for not designating him as an enemy combatant. Reading on another site now that Tsarnaev made his initial appearance before a judge this morning.
Designating an American Citizen as an Enemy Combatant, especially when he has no direct connection to a foreign terrorist organization or government at war with the US, would be an end run around the Constitution.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
Good on the Obama administration for not designating him as an enemy combatant. Reading on another site now that Tsarnaev made his initial appearance before a judge this morning.
Designating an American Citizen as an Enemy Combatant, especially when he has no direct connection to a foreign terrorist organization or government at war with the US, would be an end run around the Constitution.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
