Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Boston Marathon

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 5:46 am

Scorpion wrote:
Yeah. Well you must have found something that I haven't... I really don't understand why you think that the articles that you guys posted are sufficient. Why not post an actual, verifiable, in context quote?

Until you do, Jack has won this round, at least IMHO.


Thanks, but it's not a matter of winning or losing. It's more a case of deciding whether you choose to watch someone lie with impunity or choose to call her out on it.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 7:50 am

Back on topic...

Quote :
How to Handle a Terrorism Case

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD


Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina apparently has a thermal-imaging device for detecting the motivation of the man arrested on suspicion of bombing the Boston Marathon. He and three other Republican lawmakers declared — without the benefit of evidence — that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be considered an enemy combatant, not a criminal, and should be held by the military without access to a lawyer or the fundamental rights that distinguish this country from authoritarian regimes.

Mr. Graham’s reckless statement makes a mockery of the superb civilian police work that led to the suspect’s capture, starting with a skillful analysis of video recordings of the marathon. The law enforcement system solved the case swiftly and efficiently, led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police, and as shocking as the attack was, there is no reason civilian prosecutors, defense lawyers and courts cannot continue to do their work — especially since they have proved themselves far better at it than the military.

Mr. Tsarnaev is a naturalized American citizen, an inconvenient fact for the pressure-him-at-Gitmo crowd. He cannot be tried in a military commission, a legal system reserved for aliens. Even to be held by the military without trial would require a showing that he is associated with a declared enemy of the United States, such as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. So far there isn’t any visible connection between the Tsarnaev brothers and anyone more malevolent. Their Islamic or Chechen heritage alone is hardly proof of jihadist intent.

Fortunately the Obama administration has ignored the posturing and declared that Mr. Tsarnaev, like all citizens and even alien terrorists captured on American soil, will be tried in the federal courts. He will soon be charged with terrorism under federal statutes, and will be represented by the federal public defender’s office.

Federal and local officials intend to take their time, however, in giving a Miranda warning to the suspect, advising him of his right to remain silent. (Even if Mr. Tsarnaev remains too wounded to speak, he still deserves his rights.) There is a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement, allowing investigators to question suspects about imminent threats, like bombs or specific terror conspiracies, before the warning is given and then use that information in court. In 2010, unfortunately, the administration improperly told agents that they could expand that exception for terror suspects even when threats were not imminent.

It is not clear whether that expansion, which has yet to be tested in court, is being employed in this case. But the Obama administration, no less than Republicans, should not allow the raw emotions associated with a terrorism case to trample on the American system of justice.

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 8:51 am

wrote:
Good lord. How were Republicans/conservatives able to rally around the Patriot Act?

Oh, that's right... they're outrageous hypocrites.


Quote :
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham wrote:
Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent. It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now.

Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks.

We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama Administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option.

We will stand behind the Administration if they decide to hold this suspect as an enemy combatant.

Yeah, why would we want to enforce the Constitution and respect the rule of law? We should just pick and choose who gets the privilege of due process. Now remember, this guy would undoubtedly profess his undying love of and devotion to the Constitution and his endless belief in the genius of the Founding Fathers — you know, the ones who wrote the 4th and 5th Amendments that guarantee those rights to Tsarnaev (and to all of us too).

And you can bet that this will now be the story in the right wing blogosphere and on Fox News for the next few days, how Obama was undermining our security by trying this guy in civilian court and how he should have been tortured. They will spin lurid tales of how he’s being waited on hand and foot and fed caviar and lobster when he really should be in Gitmo. And they will of course ignore the fact that we have prosecuted hundreds of terrorists over the last 20 years, all of them successfully.

They will also ignore the fact that there is absolutely no legal way to do what they want done. There is no way in hell that any court is going to allow an American citizen who committed a crime on American soil to be declared an “enemy combatant.” Any decision to treat him as such would be overturned immediately by the federal courts and the DOJ surely knows this. The last thing they want is to attempt to do something that cannot be done. Nor is it necessary. The suspect was not read his Miranda rights when he was arrested because the police invoked the public safety exception, which is well established in the law and often used in terrorism cases.

It isn’t even entirely clear that the feds have jurisdiction over this case, as opposed to the Massachusetts state court. The federal terrorism laws have some very specific definitions that may very well not be met in this case; we won’t know for sure until more information is available about their motives and goals. The federal definition of terrorism requires that the violent acts must be done “to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” It isn’t clear yet that this is what happened; this may well be more like Columbine than 9/11.

Yeah... the 2nd amendment is so damn sacrosanct that simple background checks to make sure the buyer isn't a fucking terrorist or tracing explosives to their origin are an egregious violation, but the other amendments? Meh... fuck 'em.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 9:16 am

Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Yeah. Well I suspect that my personal opinion on this subject is well known...

"If you can't prove it, then don't post it."
It was proven by articles Edge or I previously posted that plainly said that King said we should be looking at Al-Quada. Most people would have accepted it and moved on but unfortunately I once again had to waste time with our cuckoo for media conspiracies troll.

As always,I will be happy to provide to other members via a personal message,the proof that the gutless wonder is wrong once again.


Yeah. Well you must have found something that I haven't... I really don't understand why you think that the articles that you guys posted are sufficient. Why not post an actual, verifiable, in context quote?
Well then maybe you should encourage him to accept my challenge.

Scorpion wrote:
Until you do, Jack has won this round, at least IMHO.
How does someone "win" when they run away from a challenge?

Scorpion wrote:
Take, for example, the paraphrased quote from Hannity's show. I looked that up, and watched the segment, and while it's true that he said that "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," he also went on to say that there were other possibilities as well. So I don't really think that proves anything at all.
Well then that clearly proves that he said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," which is what I've claimed all along. The fact that he may have included other possibilities doesn't negate the fact that his first possibility was Al-Qeada.

Scorpion wrote:
There's a lot of stuff going on related to this story that is actually worth discussing. But I'm hesitant to bother posting anything because we get sidetracked by your fucking feud with Jack. So I'm asking you to post what you have, and then let's move on.
Thanks!
I'm happy to move on but I'm not posting anything. As far as I'm concerned this issue is over.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 9:30 am

Artie60438 wrote:
I'm happy to move on but I'm not posting anything. As far as I'm concerned this issue is over.
You can't very well post what you don't have, can you?
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1888

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 11:55 am

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:
Take, for example, the paraphrased quote from Hannity's show. I looked that up, and watched the segment, and while it's true that he said that "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," he also went on to say that there were other possibilities as well. So I don't really think that proves anything at all.
Well then that clearly proves that he said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," which is what I've claimed all along. The fact that he may have included other possibilities doesn't negate the fact that his first possibility was Al-Qeada.

And exactly how is that relevant? Is there anyone, from either the "left" or the "right" who thought that it couldn't possibly be linked to Al-Qaeda?

Man, I was really, really hoping that you had something meaningful that I somehow missed. Instead, it looks like I wasted my time looking for something that never existed.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:
There's a lot of stuff going on related to this story that is actually worth discussing. But I'm hesitant to bother posting anything because we get sidetracked by your fucking feud with Jack. So I'm asking you to post what you have, and then let's move on.
Thanks!
I'm happy to move on but I'm not posting anything.

Then just move on.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 2:18 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:
Take, for example, the paraphrased quote from Hannity's show. I looked that up, and watched the segment, and while it's true that he said that "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," he also went on to say that there were other possibilities as well. So I don't really think that proves anything at all.
Well then that clearly proves that he said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," which is what I've claimed all along. The fact that he may have included other possibilities doesn't negate the fact that his first possibility was Al-Qeada.

And exactly how is that relevant? Is there anyone, from either the "left" or the "right" who thought that it couldn't possibly be linked to Al-Qaeda?
But that was the argument. He claimed that King never said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda". So you have a link form Hannity that confirms it and I have another one. In both cases he mentions Al-Qaeda first.

Scorpion wrote:
Man, I was really, really hoping that you had something meaningful that I somehow missed. Instead, it looks like I wasted my time looking for something that never existed.

I'm sending you the link.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1888

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 3:21 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:
Take, for example, the paraphrased quote from Hannity's show. I looked that up, and watched the segment, and while it's true that he said that "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," he also went on to say that there were other possibilities as well. So I don't really think that proves anything at all.
Well then that clearly proves that he said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," which is what I've claimed all along. The fact that he may have included other possibilities doesn't negate the fact that his first possibility was Al-Qeada.

And exactly how is that relevant? Is there anyone, from either the "left" or the "right" who thought that it couldn't possibly be linked to Al-Qaeda?
But that was the argument. He claimed that King never said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda". So you have a link form Hannity that confirms it and I have another one. In both cases he mentions Al-Qaeda first.

No. That's not what Jack "claimed." He was looking for "an actual claim that the bombings were linked to al-Qaeda."

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:
Man, I was really, really hoping that you had something meaningful that I somehow missed. Instead, it looks like I wasted my time looking for something that never existed.

I'm sending you the link.

Yeah. Well I already told you that I checked out Hannity's fucking show.

Here is the relevant excerpt...

Peter King said:
Quote :
Again, I -- we don't know for certain but, to me, I think we have to be looking toward either al Qaeda or an off shoot of al Qaeda or a self- starter here in the United States, a home-grown terrorist.

You know, I really don't like the guy, but to say that is the same as saying that King claimed that "the bombings were linked to Al-Qaeda" is nothing more than straight-up Bullshit. This is the same kind of word parsing that I condemn when I see the right wing doing it. It's intellectually dishonest, and when I see that, I'm going to point it out.

So, nothing personal...



Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 3:52 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
But that was the argument. He claimed that King never said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda".
Better check your facts, Liar Boy.



Artie60438 wrote:
How does someone "win" when they run away from a challenge?
The only "challenge" I encountered was trying to untangle your lies.



Artie60438 wrote:

Well then that clearly proves that he said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," which is what I've claimed all along.
How dumb would one have to be to have al-Qaeda be the first group to spring to mind upon hearing of a terrorist bombing? They’re way down on the list of groups who would be liable to do something like this. I think they fall somewhere between the Salvation Army and the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (those heartless, antlered bastards!).

Scorpion said it was my worst post ever!!! So as usual, I lose! So as usual, I lose! So as usual, I lose! So as usual, I lose!
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 9:46 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:
Take, for example, the paraphrased quote from Hannity's show. I looked that up, and watched the segment, and while it's true that he said that "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," he also went on to say that there were other possibilities as well. So I don't really think that proves anything at all.
Well then that clearly proves that he said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," which is what I've claimed all along. The fact that he may have included other possibilities doesn't negate the fact that his first possibility was Al-Qeada.

And exactly how is that relevant? Is there anyone, from either the "left" or the "right" who thought that it couldn't possibly be linked to Al-Qaeda?
But that was the argument. He claimed that King never said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda". So you have a link form Hannity that confirms it and I have another one. In both cases he mentions Al-Qaeda first.

No. That's not what Jack "claimed." He was looking for "an actual claim that the bombings were linked to al-Qaeda."
The challenge was this:"If I prove that within hours of the Boston Bombings Rep Peter King said that we should be looking at Al-Qaeda then Happy Jack has to post a reply in this thread where he writes out these exact words "I,Happy Jack" am the Village Idiot of this message board" 50 times." He did say that and the link I sent you proves it.
Quote :
Yeah. Well I already told you that I checked out Hannity's fucking show.
Did you even check the link I sent you? It's not from Hannity's show.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1888

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 10:20 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:
Take, for example, the paraphrased quote from Hannity's show. I looked that up, and watched the segment, and while it's true that he said that "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," he also went on to say that there were other possibilities as well. So I don't really think that proves anything at all.
Well then that clearly proves that he said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda," which is what I've claimed all along. The fact that he may have included other possibilities doesn't negate the fact that his first possibility was Al-Qeada.

And exactly how is that relevant? Is there anyone, from either the "left" or the "right" who thought that it couldn't possibly be linked to Al-Qaeda?
But that was the argument. He claimed that King never said "we should be looking at Al-Qaeda". So you have a link form Hannity that confirms it and I have another one. In both cases he mentions Al-Qaeda first.

No. That's not what Jack "claimed." He was looking for "an actual claim that the bombings were linked to al-Qaeda."
The challenge was this:"If I prove that within hours of the Boston Bombings Rep Peter King said that we should be looking at Al-Qaeda then Happy Jack has to post a reply in this thread where he writes out these exact words "I,Happy Jack" am the Village Idiot of this message board" 50 times." He did say that and the link I sent you proves it.
Quote :
Yeah. Well I already told you that I checked out Hannity's fucking show.
Did you even check the link I sent you? It's not from Hannity's show.

Yeah. I obviously "checked the link." I posted the quote from it, didn't I? Yeah. OK it was from O'Reilly instead of Hannity. Sorry about that.

Regarding your "challenge," that's not how I understood it, and I'm sure that's not the way that any other reasonable person would understand it either. Because that "challenge" is nothing more than a semantic distinction. It's not substantive. If you can't see that, then you're a fucking moron.

And I thought we were "moving on?" I don't think that there's anything more to say. You've stated your position. I've stated mine. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

I'd really like to have a discussion about the important aspects of this case, like what did everyone think about the lockdown? Or what about the effort in some quarters to try the bomber as an "enemy combatant?" Just seems more relevant than your "challenge...." At least to me.


Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 11:08 pm

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. I obviously "checked the link." I posted the quote from it, didn't I? Yeah. OK it was from O'Reilly instead of Hannity. Sorry about that.
No problem. I only mentioned it because it's not like you to overlook something like that..

Quote :
Regarding your "challenge," that's not how I understood it, and I'm sure that's not the way that any other reasonable person would understand it either. Because that "challenge" is nothing more than a semantic distinction. It's not substantive. If you can't see that, then you're a fucking moron.

And I thought we were "moving on?" I don't think that there's anything more to say. You've stated your position. I've stated mine. We're going to have to agree to disagree.
One last thing. Bear with me... Subject: Re: Boston Marathon Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:35 pm
Quote :
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Welcome to the afternoon edition of "This day in Village Idiot stupidity!
Village Idiot happy jack wrote:

My God, edge - anybody can say he made these claims.
I provided you with the only quote I could find attributed to him on this topic, and in it, he does not say what you claim he said.
Where are the quotes, in his own words, in which he made these claims?
They shouldn't be all that hard to find (assuming that they even exist).
In a special edition of his show, Bill O’Reilly continued Fox News’ coverage of today’s bombing at the Boston Marathon. He was joined by Peter King, the Republican congressman from New York. King added that “there’s no doubt in my mind that this is a terrorist attack.” While we don’t have all the facts, and officials haven’t said who is responsible for the attack, King said we need to be looking at al Qaeda, or at least an offshoot of the organization.
As 'Edge' is fond of saying, "Forehead..meet Rake"! Laughing

Watch that rake, Artie, because I'm telling you the same thing I told edge:

Anybody can say he made these claims.
I provided you with the only quote I could find attributed to him on this topic, and in it, he does not say what you claim he said.
Where are the quotes, in his own words, in which he made these claims?
If you provide those for me, then I will gladly acknowledge that you are correct.
They shouldn't be all that hard to find (assuming that they even exist).
You can plainly see that he throws out the article because it didn't have quotes and the circle jerk begins. He then goes on to his usual nonsense of alleging that I may have made it up. Clearly I did not make anything up.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/22/2013, 11:22 pm

Scorpion wrote:

I'd really like to have a discussion about the important aspects of this case, like what did everyone think about the lockdown? Or what about the effort in some quarters to try the bomber as an "enemy combatant?" Just seems more relevant than your "challenge...." At least to me.
They called it a lockdown but people could still go outside if they wished. I think it was a good idea. Citizens were on edge and no one knew for sure if there were more bombs planted. Besides,the less people on the street the easier it is for police to search.

As to the "enemy combatant' nonsense? It's just the usual theatrics of Grampa McCain and his Southern Belle. This kid is a US citizen and has been here for about 10 years and should be treated as such. I also agree with the DOJ's decision to not Mirandize him,as until they get more information there was still a possible public threat based on the bombs and materials they recovered.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 9:10 am

Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. I obviously "checked the link." I posted the quote from it, didn't I? Yeah. OK it was from O'Reilly instead of Hannity. Sorry about that.
No problem. I only mentioned it because it's not like you to overlook something like that..

Quote :
Regarding your "challenge," that's not how I understood it, and I'm sure that's not the way that any other reasonable person would understand it either. Because that "challenge" is nothing more than a semantic distinction. It's not substantive. If you can't see that, then you're a fucking moron.

And I thought we were "moving on?" I don't think that there's anything more to say. You've stated your position. I've stated mine. We're going to have to agree to disagree.
One last thing. Bear with me... Subject: Re: Boston Marathon Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:35 pm
Quote :
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Welcome to the afternoon edition of "This day in Village Idiot stupidity!
Village Idiot happy jack wrote:

My God, edge - anybody can say he made these claims.
I provided you with the only quote I could find attributed to him on this topic, and in it, he does not say what you claim he said.
Where are the quotes, in his own words, in which he made these claims?
They shouldn't be all that hard to find (assuming that they even exist).
In a special edition of his show, Bill O’Reilly continued Fox News’ coverage of today’s bombing at the Boston Marathon. He was joined by Peter King, the Republican congressman from New York. King added that “there’s no doubt in my mind that this is a terrorist attack.” While we don’t have all the facts, and officials haven’t said who is responsible for the attack, King said we need to be looking at al Qaeda, or at least an offshoot of the organization.
As 'Edge' is fond of saying, "Forehead..meet Rake"! Laughing

Watch that rake, Artie, because I'm telling you the same thing I told edge:

Anybody can say he made these claims.
I provided you with the only quote I could find attributed to him on this topic, and in it, he does not say what you claim he said.
Where are the quotes, in his own words, in which he made these claims?
If you provide those for me, then I will gladly acknowledge that you are correct.
They shouldn't be all that hard to find (assuming that they even exist).
You can plainly see that he throws out the article because it didn't have quotes and the circle jerk begins. He then goes on to his usual nonsense of alleging that I may have made it up. Clearly I did not make anything up.

In order to keep from embarrassing yourself further on this matter, you should probably cut bait and slink off into the sunset.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 9:59 am

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/23/chris_matthews_on_bombers_what_difference_does_it_make_why_they_did_it.html

Posted on April 23, 2013

Chris Matthews On Bombers: "What Difference Does It Make Why They Did It?"

MSNBC's Chris Matthews is not that interested in finding out a motive for last week's bombing of the Boston Marathon, but instead focused on prosecuting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a 19-year-old ethnic Chechen who was apprehended by authorities on Saturday.

While Matthews was concerned about the video tape that puts Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan, 26, now deceased, at the Marathon, former FBI profiler and hostage negotiator Clint Van Zandt was interested in gathering intelligence to find out if more attacks were being planned.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: I know we're filled in this country with some strange thinking people, truthers, birthers that have off-the-wall theories. I don't know how anybody could look at this evidence presented so far and have some other theory of the case besides the indictment itself.

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FBI PROFILER: No, it's really coming together. I mean, there's -- as terrible as this case is and was, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of heavy lifting. We've got the two primary individuals. It's obvious that they had hands on the devices. The pieces we don't have, Chris, are where was their inspiration? Where did they get the guidance? Who taught them how to build the bombs? Where did they build them? These are a lot of questions.

MATTHEWS: Why is that important? Why is that important to -- is that important to prosecuting? I mean, what difference does it make why they did it if they did it? I'm being tough here. But I don't know whether, when you look at all this evidence --

VAN ZANDT: No, no, no.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

VAN ZANDT: No, it's important to the case because we want to make sure there aren't other that should be prosecuted. 'Is there anybody else in the immediate Boscon area who gave aid and comfort, assistance, money, guidance, teaching?' If not, how far does this go?

Did that six month trip to Russia and the Kazakhs, at the 26-year-old, now deceased, suspected terrorist or bomber. Did he receive bomb training there? We, you know, can't quit and just say, okay, we got two guys, we're done with it, let's move on again.

As you know, today they had another incident, it took place in Canada. (Hardball, April 22, 2013)





Tingles really doesn’t seem to care why these maniacs in Boston did what they did, but, on the other hand, it seems to be imperative to him to ferret out the rationale behind this alleged crime:



http://www.wrko.com/blog/todd/chris-matthews-shows-problem-hate-crime-laws

Chris Matthews Shows Problem with Hate Crime Laws

The debate over what hateful word may have been spoken by George Zimmerman before he shot Tayvon Martin seems to me a good example of what's wrong with the notion of hate crimes. Watch Chris Matthews embarrass himself on the premise that muttering a slur would demonstrate the shooter's intent...
It sounds to me like the "f word"... and another word which is clearly recognizable... as a racial slur... we cut it off there, I don't know why we cut it off there...




Jagoff.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 11:37 am

Artie60438 wrote:
I also agree with the DOJ's decision to not Mirandize him...

I don't understand what the big deal was. The "public safety" exemption just means that any info on, for instance, additionally planted bombs won't get excluded as evidence from future court proceedings. That's it. He has the rights either way, and non-Mirandized interrogations aren't different than Mirandized ones, nor do the success rates differ in one over another. Were they just hoping he didn't know he didn't have to say anything?

The media was making an awfully big deal about this, but I can't figure out why. Unless it was just because they didn't know wtf they were talking about.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5956

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 11:52 am

This portion seems to provide the clearest and most justifiable reasoning for invoking the public safety exemption to Miranda, considering that we didn’t and, as far as I’m concerned, still don’t, know with any degree of certainty if others may be involved in planning more trouble.




https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

In brief, and as discussed in this article, police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 12:57 pm

Yeah, that's the same article I found trying to figure it out, but it wasn't anything new. I guess I just can't figure out why it was all newsworthy, though that could be just the usual media sensationalism and hyperfocus on such a tragic event. The reporting of it was just... odd. Law enforcement doesn't decide if its an exemption, the court does, but they made it sound like it was a done deal. Not Mirandizing him just means they're hoping they got it right and the judge won't kick out any evidence later. The whole thing is just an evidentiary issue, and a lot of people were talking about "rights violations" and whatnot, which is simply ludicrous.

I don't understand why they wouldn't read him his rights other than fearing he'd clam up and not talk. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, that they were looking for more bombs and wanted to keep him cooperative. It's not like they're going to need the additional evidence. Moot point now, I guess, since he has been Mirandized and he's singing like a canary...
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 1:08 pm

happy jack wrote:


Jagoff.

Ah yes, since we're on the subject of "Jagoff"...

Ann Coulter: Boston Bomb Suspect’s Wife Should Be In Prison For Wearing A Hijab

Posted by Ellen · April 22, 2013 · 17 reactions
Meet Fox News’ newest terrorism expert: Ann Coulter. She appeared on the Hannity show tonight to answer the question, as FoxNews.com put it: Suspected bomber’s widow: Did she know? Not that Coulter offered any clues as to the answer but she employed the same brand of wit and insight that led her to joke about killing Meghan McCain not long ago instead. Coulter “quipped” that the widow, Katherine Russell (an American), should have been arrested for wearing a hijab. For her next knee slapper, Coulter “wondered” whether Russell had had a clitorectomy. She must have been fresh out of murder humor.
Read more


I saw this conservative asshole on Hannity and they were both insisting on making the suspect talk by torturing him.
Never mind that he is talking.




Fox Guest: ‘Red-Blooded Americans' Want To Torture Boston Bomb Suspect

Posted by Ellen · April 22, 2013 · 16 reactions
State Senator Greg Ball (R-NY) is in a bit of political hot water for having tweeted on Friday, So, scum bag #2 in custody. Who wouldn’t use torture on this punk to save more lives?” So, naturally, he got a friendly platform on Fox & Friends to double down on his torture love – by arguing that most people agree with him. Host Gretchen Carlson seemed as though she were trying to hold back and hide her disapproval.
Read more
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 1:33 pm

And now back to the other asshole, Islamophobe Peter King who is still suggesting an Al Qaeda connection (with no proof) and that the two brothers were sent by Al Qaeda.

Quote :
"They are getting people in our country who are under the radar screen, who have clean records. We saw it with the Times Square bomber, the subway bomber in New York, and now we've seen it, it appears, in Massachusetts."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/feinstein_vs_peter_king_you_have_real_disdain_and_hatred_for_muslims.html
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 2:29 pm

And it gets better. The list of republican lunatics is never ending.

State Rep Claims Boston Bombings a 'Staged' Black Ops Attack

There's growing dislike for Rep. Stella Tremblay's Facebook comment to Glenn Beck. NHGOP and NHDP alike denounced it Tuesday.


A three-term Republican state representative and homemaker from Auburn has drawn the red-hot ire of Republicans and Democrats alike for her comment on Glenn Beck's Facebook page that the Boston Marathon bombings were a "Black Ops terrorist attack" by the U.S. government.
Stella Tremblay commented: "The Boston Marathon was a Black Ops 'terrorist' attack. One suspect killed, the other one will be too before they even have a chance to speak. Drones and now "terrorist" attacks by our own Government. Sad day, but a "wake up" to all of us."

http://chelmsford.patch.com/articles/nh-state-rep-claims-boston-bombings-a-staged-black-ops-attack

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/stella-tremblay-boston-bombing_n_3140461.html
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 3:27 pm

Heretic wrote:
Yeah, that's the same article I found trying to figure it out, but it wasn't anything new. I guess I just can't figure out why it was all newsworthy, though that could be just the usual media sensationalism and hyperfocus on such a tragic event. The reporting of it was just... odd.
Not really. What's the actual story? The guy is in custody and he's responding to questioning. That takes less than 15 seconds to report. Now they have to fill the next 13 minute segment with the usual speculation to try and keep viewers from changing the channel
I don't understand why they wouldn't read him his rights other than fearing he'd clam up and not talk. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, that they were looking for more bombs and wanted to keep him cooperative.
[/quote] It also calms down and throws a bone to the idiots on the right who want him tortured,sent to Gitmo,or who know what.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 3:33 pm

edge540 wrote:
And it gets better. The list of republican lunatics is never ending.

State Rep Claims Boston Bombings a 'Staged' Black Ops Attack

There's growing dislike for Rep. Stella Tremblay's Facebook comment to Glenn Beck. NHGOP and NHDP alike denounced it Tuesday.


A three-term Republican state representative and homemaker from Auburn has drawn the red-hot ire of Republicans and Democrats alike for her comment on Glenn Beck's Facebook page that the Boston Marathon bombings were a "Black Ops terrorist attack" by the U.S. government.
Stella Tremblay commented: "The Boston Marathon was a Black Ops 'terrorist' attack. One suspect killed, the other one will be too before they even have a chance to speak. Drones and now "terrorist" attacks by our own Government. Sad day, but a "wake up" to all of us."

http://chelmsford.patch.com/articles/nh-state-rep-claims-boston-bombings-a-staged-black-ops-attack

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/stella-tremblay-boston-bombing_n_3140461.html
Beck reminds me of a certain other nitwit.....
Beck: 'The Burden of Proof Is on the Federal Government' To Refute My Conspiracy Theory
Quote :
Last night, as expected, Glenn Beck dedicated his television program to continuing to make his case that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, a Saudi national injured in the Boston marathon bombing, was originally taken into custody as a suspect in the bombing and designated as a terrorist, only to have the designation removed as he was prepared for deportation after a meeting between high-ranking US and Saudi officials.

A few of Beck's claims were subsequently undermined by a report published late last night by his own reporters at The Blaze, but Beck is convinced that Alharbi is an al Qaeda operative who was responsible for recruiting the Tsarnaev brothers to carry out the Boston bombing.

And Beck is undaunted, as he stated last night that "the burden of proof is on the federal government" to disprove his conspiracy theory "and so far they have not presented one shred of evidence that refutes what The Blaze has reported. Not one":
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/23/2013, 9:12 pm

edge540 wrote:
A three-term Republican state representative and homemaker from Auburn has drawn the red-hot ire of Republicans and Democrats alike for her comment on Glenn Beck's Facebook page that the Boston Marathon bombings were a "Black Ops terrorist attack" by the U.S. government.

And Republicans be should be crying for his immediate resignation a la Van Jones, especially since Jones' name merely ended up on a list, whereas this guy openly says he believes the government was complicit in a terrorist attack against US citizens.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   4/26/2013, 9:05 am

It's really hilarious watching the muppets in the conservative media absolutely shred the Constitution at the same time they so vociferously defend the 2nd Amendment against any limitations that might prevent terrorists from getting guns, despite the difference in lives lost due to terrorism vs guns:



Proving yet again, the rabid gun worship has little to do with the Constitution or saving lives.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Boston Marathon   

Back to top Go down
 
Boston Marathon
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: