For those who think this is reasonable, tell me the exact point at which a "regular" crime becomes one deserving of the "public safety exception." For example, instead of a successful pressure-cooker bomb that killed three and injured hundreds, suppose it had been a pipe bomb in a trash can that left one guy with three stitches. Based on past events, that one would not have been an "exception" although the act itself was identical. Somewhere between the two events lies the point of "exception" - where is it and who defines it? And BTW, who verifies that an un-Mirandized interrogation actually does follow the rules of the exception? Unfortunately, the Fifth is in way more danger than the Second.
anon wrote:Could you imagine the conservative outrage should he have been read his rights? Obama blah blah blah, giving terrorists rights, blah blah blah.
:-(
The rights exist whether they were read to him or not. Has to do with whether the statements made could be used against him. Using the "exception," they can.
anon wrote:Could you imagine the conservative outrage should he have been read his rights? Obama blah blah blah, giving terrorists rights, blah blah blah.
:-(
The rights exist whether they were read to him or not. Has to do with whether the statements made could be used against him. Using the "exception," they can.
Quite honestly I wasn't expecting him to be tried in civilian court. I'm pleasantly surprised that he is though! Apparently some of the Repubs were wanting to classify him as an "Enemy Combatant".
There is no rational argument as to why he wouldn't be tried in accordance with normal criminal procedure. What did he do? He left a bomb in a crowd. Why? We don't know. Maybe he hates infidels, but that's not an international issue; maybe he hates runners; maybe he's nuts. But unless they can come up with a good story as to how his action was an attack on the US itself and/or its government, then he's just another violent criminal in a country full of violent criminals.
BTW, does anyone remember the old "Spy vs Spy" cartoons in Mad Magazine. Bombing each other or somebody else was a daily occurrence. I wonder if they're still around.
O Really wrote:There is no rational argument as to why he wouldn't be tried in accordance with normal criminal procedure. What did he do? He left a bomb in a crowd. Why? We don't know. Maybe he hates infidels, but that's not an international issue; maybe he hates runners; maybe he's nuts. But unless they can come up with a good story as to how his action was an attack on the US itself and/or its government, then he's just another violent criminal in a country full of violent criminals.
For Senator Graham to spend the past few weeks arguing that background checks for terrorists, criminals or anyone else who want to purchase a gun at a gun show violates the Second Amendment to our Constitution only to turn around and seek to strip an American citizen of his constitutional due process rights is nothing short of the epitome of hypocrisy and beyond abhorrent.
Vrede wrote:Copied from the page bottom into this thread in order to be less annoying:
(21:03:18) Boatrocker: They got the fucker!
(22:57:00) rstrong: And the Boston Marathon bombers too!
(12:26:50) (383189): The Fifth in more danger than the Second...LMAO. This whole country is in danger thanks to all you idiots!!!
(12:39:04) Vrede: West Fertilizer Co. killed more. This whole country is in danger thanks to all you con idiots!!!
(13:17:26) bannination: It's their own fault though, those workers should have worked somewhere safer. People should have chosen move away. Capitalism FTW!
(13:28:21) (365379): Just like a liberal dumbass to comapre an industrial accident to a terrorist attack.
(13:35:38) Vrede: Dumbass, search: "Texas fertilizer company didn't heed (DHS) disclosure rules before blast." Chemical plants are a national security matter and what counts is the actual threat to American life.
(13:56:39) (365379): Already did...nothing proven...they dont know if lack of disclosure willful or due to regulatory gridlock...nice try though...still a dumbass to compare an accident to a terrorist attack.
(14:12:05) Vrede: It's way more than that, dumbass. West Fertilizer Co. did not have sprinklers, water-deluge systems, blast walls, fire walls or other safety mechanisms in place at the plant and even claimed that it was not handling flammable materials. I get that in your bizarre world 4 dead Americans is worse than 14+ dead Americans.
(14:49:55) (584470): The only bizarre world here is yours where you attempt to compare an accident to a terrorist attack....BTW Ammonia Nitrate is not classified as a flammable material so West was correct idiot!
(15:07:53) bannination: I think he's right, it's not classified as flammable, it's classified as explosive.
(15:09:27) bannination: ... that just makes our anon look even more stupid.
(15:34:15) Vrede: I don't define such deadly, profit-driven and callous shunning of reasonable safety precautions as accidental.
(16:00:04) (997214): It's neither Ammonia Nitrate is classified as either an oxidizer or a miscellaneous dangerous substance...depending on the blend....still doesnt change the liberal fantasy that an idustrial accident can be comapred to a terrorist attack
(16:40:31) Vrede: You're hairsplitting, everyone knows its potential and we've just witnessed the results. You're right about the comparison, the devastation courtesy of West Fertilizer Co. was far worse.
They're going by the MSDS for their classification of not being in an explosive category. By the same token the MSDS for sodium will also not list it as explosive, we all know however that IT IS EXPLOSIVE. Use common sense: http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0216.htm
If it's not explosive WHAT THE FUCK EXPLODED?
Oh, and it is listed as flammable, my mistake, I was too flabbergasted in the comment that it's not explosive.
Chicken Anon wrote:...BTW just because something "may be combustible at high temps" does not classify it as flammable. Geez learn a few things before making fools of yourselves.
It was the company stash for the 4th of July picnic that caught fire and exploded killing at least 3 times more Americans than the Boston bombers did.
Had to have been, it's not flammable, it's not explosive. We do have an admission that it's a powerful oxidizer though. Argue over words all he wants, the result is obvious to anyone.
He thinks it's not flammable just because it's rated a 0. That doesn't mean it's like water, it WILL BURN when exposed to high enough temperatures.
The nutjobs are still yammering on about the Saudi national. That was the
guy they pegged as the bomber, following along on the old nutjob paper trail.
They're sure something stinks here, got to be some kind of conspiracy of
course. Now Blowjobber is quoting a Saudi paper that Michelle visited this
guy in the hospital. Guess some Muslims can be trusted.
Something stinks about the younger brother too. How did he manage to elude
the police for so long? It's very obvious if you're a nutter. Foreign training and/or
he got some help. Anybody can see that. And don't forget that they, whoever
they are, were not going to let him live because then it would be discovered
that he was connected to Obama, the Muslim Brtherhood, the Saudis, Bill Ayers,
the MSM, the ghost of Alinsky, and other nefarious figures. You can't fix stupid.:
I'm not talking about the guy they're letting go, I mean the guy on the run.
They can't let him live to tell how he was connected to the Arabs.
Pay attention!
Vrede wrote:I'm not sure that nascarfan88/Bowhntr would be so petty, immature and stupid on a topic that took the lives of firefighters, but I might be wrong.
No one else would screw around with words like Flammability. It's Nascarfan.
Flammability didn't cause the problem, but he's stuck on that word because somehow that proves it was safe.
bannination wrote:Yeah, he just didn't want a record of the conversation to show how stupid he looked. The forum allows anonymous posting, so no excuse there...
That's one reason I think it's Partisan62/ex-member. He knows we know his IP. I, at least, don't know nascarfan88/Bowhntr's IP and don't know how to find it from the page-bottom format.
IP originates from Asheville. You know what that means, well, at least it narrowed it down. I wasn't going to look until I seen him claim he wasn't.
Interesting article about how thoroughly the wingnuts (and their local lemmings) totally
screwed up the story and kept on screwing it up and likely still are screwing it up.:
Vrede wrote:Almost all the alleged acts by those subject to military tribunals were remote to the American homeland. For the Boston bomber we want the greater certainty and rapidity of the civilian court system. It's cheaper for the taxpayers, too.
So if I'm the defense attorney (and I'm grateful every day I haven't had to make a living in criminal or family law), the first thing I'm going to argue over is the "public safety" exception. Obviously it isn't a black/white decision, and I'd hammer on that for as long as it took. It's not that I defend this guy, or what he did, but unless they know a lot more than they've released, all they've got is a guy leaving a bomb in a crowd. Lots of stuff to charge him with, probably will be found guilty of most of it. I'm concerned about the rest of us and how easy it could become to carve away our own protections against abuse by the government. Why aren't the anti-gummint conspiracy people on my side on this? How can anyone say they distrust their government enough to think they'll need big guns and yet trust the same government to interrogate them outside their Fifth Amendment rights?
Had to have been, it's not flammable, it's not explosive. We do have an admission that it's a powerful oxidizer though. Argue over words all he wants, the result is obvious to anyone.