Two bombs went off and the Boston Marathon finish

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,293
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
Last edited:

biggie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
788
Location
NC, USA
Car(s)
2x-'93 Nissan 240sx V/C, '03 Infiniti G35 C
This was a crime allegedly committed (note, innocent until proven guilty, y'know, the American way) in the US by an American citizen. Tell me what's foreign apart from this guy's birthplace, which last I heard wasn't an offense.
If labeled an enemy combatant it would move it to military court. Basically turning it into a foreign matter. To me anyone doing such a thing should not be considered an American citizen, within the act you are denouncing your citizenship.

After this I wouldn't be surprised to see some trying to get such a law on the books. Before this most Americans that have done such crimes have killed themselves, so guess this may be the standard going forward. Also wonder if lawmakers will look at other things like this suspect only becoming a citizen last year, but doubt that.

- - - Updated - - -

Timothy McVeigh did the same thing and he was put on trial in a federal court. How about the Beltway sniper?

Why do you think the literal representation of Justice is a person blindfolded with a scale in her hands? Every single citizen has to, must be tried in the same manner or else we are no better than the mock trials that happened in Nazi Germany and 1940's China.

God in Heaven....are you being blatantly ignorant for the sake of debate?
See above, I believe that the act/actions such as these are denouncing citizenship. That is my thought process, I'm sure some don't agree.

I keep hearing that liberals teach accepting others opinions, then I don't see it in action.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. That is the case. But it's not all what is wrong with biggie's post: The idea that the justice system employs two sets of rights for natives and foreigners is most disturbing. Not only would a foreign country treating an US citizen like this lead to an outcry, and rightly so, the idea is even more out of place when it comes to the foreigners in the US, a country that basically is built on immigration. biggie, how many generations have passed since your ancestors came to the US? And how many generations less, in your mind, make the difference between a foreigner and a real american?
Again has nothing to do with the citizen originally being from another country, has to do with crimes against the country.

No clue how many generations on my mom's side, or where the original part the white side of my dad's family is from. Only origin that I know of Cherokee Indian, but that's only about 1/16.
 

DanRoM

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
8,925
Location
Ruhr Area, Germany
Car(s)
MX-5 ND, Tracer 900 GT & two bikes
crimes against the country
It was a crime against a few citizens. "The country" is not dead, nor is it hospitalized with missing legs or something.

The only thing threatening the USA as a country about this is US citizens crying out for sacking the principles of justice. But, as I am relieved to read in mynay diverse voices in the above posts, there are many who disagree with you.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
If labeled an enemy combatant it would move it to military court. Basically turning it into a foreign matter. To me anyone doing such a thing should not be considered an American citizen, within the act you are denouncing your citizenship.
After the war, we deported a number of women for having affairs with German soldiers. They were Norwegian citizens, born in Norway to Norwegian parents. They were stripped of their citizenship, and they were deported to a Germany.

This was, of course, perfectly legal. Oh, wait, no, it wasn't. It was completely illegal. Just like the mass deportations of communists during the red scare was illegal and FDRs internment of American citizens with Japanese ancestry was also illegal.

Labeling an American citizen an enemy combattant is making up a fake excuse do deny him or her habeas corpus. It is also completely stupid and about as warranted as eating a sledge hammer in order to become more sturdy.

I don't know if you recall, but we had an event in Oslo and on a small island about one and a half year ago. Sure was painful going through that trial, I promise you. But it was worth it, just like it was worth it prosecuting Vidkun Quisling in a proper way. It's because our societies are above the wrath of the totalitarianist state.

The principle of a fair trial to anyone for any crime is about as complicated as the principle of giving every single citizen the same vote in an election.

And to be honest, it is purile to say the least to even suggest that anyone should be beyond a fair trial. A free society isn't worth the ink it's founded on if you start selectively chopping out the bits that don't fit you.

Perhaps it's time for a new constitutional ammendment banning critisism of the government as well.

I keep hearing that liberals teach accepting others opinions, then I don't see it in action.
The principle idea of liberalism is tolerance to the freedom of others, that does include the principle that people can form, frame and express opinions, even if they're quite frankly so weird and silly they make as much sense as trying to herd cats. But I'd still take a bullet to defend your right to believe utter drivel. And that's not (just) a clich?, I actually believe that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay

SpitfireMK461

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
2,682
Location
Northern Virginia
Car(s)
2013 Mini Cooper S
Apparently he did speak to say "No" to the question of if he could afford a lawyer. Glad we'll be paying for that good lawyer for him now.

I am very glad we'll be paying for his lawyer. The only thing better than getting the guy is giving him proper American justice with all the trimmings. Taking a citizen (or any civilian on our soil) into military court and removing their rights lowers us as a society and makes us no better than them. The proper response to terrorism is to put them on trial in civilian court (when the option is reasonably available).
 

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
I don't know if you recall, but we had an event in Oslo and on a small island about one and a half year ago. Sure was painful going through that trial, I promise you. But it was worth it, just like it was worth it prosecuting Vidkun Quisling in a proper way. It's because our societies are above the wrath of the totalitarianist state.

That is exactly what I am trying to articulate; do the trial in a fair, unbiased way so that the accused cannot find not a single loophole to worm out of that any judge worth their salt would overturn if found to be a mistrial. Because it could happen.

Also, and I know this could be a separate debate, but I do not want him executed, nor do I feel that my government has the right to execute it's own citizens. I want him live out his own hell for the rest of his natural life, death is what he would want, and I think he should be denied that, as he denied others the right to live.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
I am very glad we'll be paying for his lawyer. The only thing better than getting the guy is giving him proper American justice with all the trimmings. Taking a citizen (or any civilian on our soil) into military court and removing their rights lowers us as a society and makes us no better than them. The proper response to terrorism is to put them on trial in civilian court (when the option is reasonably available).
You see, it's fine to give a lawyer to a normal murderer. And a rapist. Even a burglar. But not a terrorist. Right. Makes sense.


That is exactly what I am trying to articulate; do the trial in a fair, unbiased way so that the accused cannot find not a single loophole to worm out of that any judge worth their salt would overturn if found to be a mistrial. Because it could happen.

Also, and I know this could be a separate debate, but I do not want him executed, nor do I feel that my government has the right to execute it's own citizens. I want him live out his own hell for the rest of his natural life, death is what he would want, and I think he should be denied that, as he denied others the right to live.
After the last war, Winston Spencer wanted to shoot the top Nazis on sight. Just kill them and get it over with. Yanks didn't want that, and the N?remberg trials were the result.

Now, there were a point during the trial, when Goering was doing rather well, displaying fine oratory and in some cases whipping the prosecutorial arse of the prosecutor. But then they started hitting back, and Goering was discredited in a proper way in a proper court and the German people got to see him humiliated by democracy. And I don't buy the argument it wasn't a fair trial because the verdict was a foregone conclution. If someone shoots an anchorman on live television, the 'guilty' verdict will also be a forgone conclution as there will be millions of witnesses. It's still a fair and proper trial. And let's not forget that some top nazis (like Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess) who were not condemned to death. The N?remberg trials prove conclusively that there are no crime that is to horrible to get a proper trial. There literally is no crime ever tried more horrendous than the Holocaust, but it was tried in a proper court. And it was worth it.

As for state murder, I agree with you, but that's certainly not a theme for this debate.
 
Last edited:

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,406
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Again has nothing to do with the citizen originally being from another country, has to do with crimes against the country.
While I agree with what the others said, one important thing has not been addressed yet. It's a simple matter of facts.

The fact is: The Boston bombers committed a triple homicide and, if one is generous with numbers, attempted murder in a few hundred cases. There have been gangland shootings and forced suicides by religious courts with higher casualties. What makes this matter special and potentially a "crime against the country" is motive.

In any court of law, be it military or otherwise, as long as it does not feature a dwarf with a bell, the prosecution has to establish motive as part of the trial.

This means that in any justice system that provides a fair trial, you can not decide to treat one person different than another due to his or her motive. Which is why stripping a person of his citizenship cause he committed "a crime against his country" before the trial or putting him or her in front of a "special court" due to the motive is impossible. Taking away his citizenship as part of the judgment, is another matter. As far as I know, some countries allow to strip people who committed certain crimes of their citizenship as long as they would not become stateless as a result.

And as a sidenote, a if this would be a foreign matter, it would not become a matter for a military tribunal, but for the international court at The Hague.
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,278
Location
Michigan USA
You love to give me -rep, jealousy is lovely.

Someone who is trying to blow up American citizens should not have American rights. We have military courts for foreign matters.

If labeled an enemy combatant it would move it to military court. Basically turning it into a foreign matter. To me anyone doing such a thing should not be considered an American citizen, within the act you are denouncing your citizenship.

After this I wouldn't be surprised to see some trying to get such a law on the books. Before this most Americans that have done such crimes have killed themselves, so guess this may be the standard going forward. Also wonder if lawmakers will look at other things like this suspect only becoming a citizen last year, but doubt that.

- - - Updated - - -


See above, I believe that the act/actions such as these are denouncing citizenship. That is my thought process, I'm sure some don't agree.

I keep hearing that liberals teach accepting others opinions, then I don't see it in action.

- - - Updated - - -


Again has nothing to do with the citizen originally being from another country, has to do with crimes against the country.

No clue how many generations on my mom's side, or where the original part the white side of my dad's family is from. Only origin that I know of Cherokee Indian, but that's only about 1/16.


Wow, that is very fascist of you. Us liberals do listen to the other opinions, but it is only the conservatives that are blindly willing to throw out the law and the constitution when it serves their purpose or motives.
 

biggie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
788
Location
NC, USA
Car(s)
2x-'93 Nissan 240sx V/C, '03 Infiniti G35 C
Wow, that is very fascist of you. Us liberals do listen to the other opinions, but it is only the conservatives that are blindly willing to throw out the law and the constitution when it serves their purpose or motives.
Conservatives want to throw out the constitution? 2nd ammendment ring a bell lately?
 

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
Conservatives want to throw out the constitution? 2nd ammendment ring a bell lately?

Yet you want to ignore amendments 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, possibly the 10th and the 14th.
 
Last edited:

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,293
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
Yet you want to ignore amendments 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, possibly the 10th and the 14th.

Jay you don't understand they just love the 2nd amendment so much and held onto it so tight that they ripped it out of the constitution so now that is all they have left. That wording about a, 'well regulated militia,' fell on the floor and got lost though.


If I have time I will make a serious post and cut out the snark.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,406
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Conservatives want to throw out the constitution? 2nd ammendment ring a bell lately?
I like how you ignored a page worth of well-worded counter-arguments to your position and jumped straight to the only ad hominem insult.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Conservatives want to throw out the constitution? 2nd ammendment ring a bell lately?
Conservatives (and as I'm European, that probably includes most of the democratic party as well) tend to be fans of authority. You may also call it the law and order vote. Conservatives believe crimes need to be penalized, and that crime shouldn't pay. I am of course generalizing, and there are many criminal conservatives, but as a rule, conservatism tend to be in favor of less hindrance to law enforcement.

Liberals or left wingers tend to be less inclined to support such positions. Let me put it this way, the most common enemy of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, possibly the 10th and the 14th ammendments tend to be conservatives, because it would supposedly make it easier to maintain law and order. It's more or less true in most countries. The more right wing any party is, the more pro-police it is. The more left wing a party is, the more likely it is to support limits to police powers.

Now, I'm not talking about proper communists, as we saw them in Eastern Europe, but that's a different matter.

The debate on the 2nd ammendment is not about the left oposing constitutional principles, it's just in line with the left wing idea of a state monopoly on violence, but also clear limits on those powers.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,406
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Ahh just what they probably want, people fighting among themselves. Help those who are hurt, justly punish those who were involved, and move on from it. Anything more is just giving them what they want, fear.
The man with the strange name speaks the truth.
 

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,293
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
Ahh just what they probably want, people fighting among themselves. Help those who are hurt, justly punish those who were involved, and move on from it. Anything more is just giving them what they want, fear.

Excellent and right.

They committed a crime. A heinous one of mass murder but we have tried and convicted plenty of people where there was more loss of life and property. These people have been US citizens like McVeigh and foreign nationals like Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh the four people initially convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Two more people, Yousef and Ismoil, were convicted in 1997.

There is no reason to treat Tsarnaev any different.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Crime is crime. Criminals are tried in a court of law. Period.
 

Wizegui

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
2,466
Location
Richmond, BC
Car(s)
'93 Toyota Tercel, '01 Swagger Wagon
Of course the left-wing media is insisting that Tsarnaev was working alone and dismissing that they were funded by Muslim extremists and Jihadists. There is no reason why they shouldn't be tried as war criminals.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,406
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Of course the left-wing media is insisting that Tsarnaev was working alone and dismissing that they were funded by Muslim extremists and Jihadists. There is no reason why they shouldn't be tried as war criminals.
Have you even read the discussion on the last pages?
 
Top