Fahrenheit
Banned
If your both US citizens then yes. You can't pick and choice who the law is applied too. The baby killer gets the same rights as the J walker
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Boston: One dead, one captured, city re-opened
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
If your both US citizens then yes. You can't pick and choice who the law is applied too. The baby killer gets the same rights as the J walker
Fahrenheit
Banned
Your just avoiding the issue of an american citizen was going (will when hes stable) to be questioned without his rights. Guess you where a big supporter of the Patriot Act huh?
dutchguyjack
Member
Why should they have the same rights?
I've got one question about all this.
HOW DOES BARSTOOLSPORTS.COM KEEP GETTING ALL THESE SCOOPS
how do you think the dude got so good at Beerpong?
he was sponsored and this was all for increasing the brandvalue
No, he has his rights regardless of the warning. Are you going to keep arguing in bad faith?
Fahrenheit
Banned
The whole all men are created equal stuff and the Innocent till proven guilty bit
And they have the law on their side with regards to that. I still don't know what your argument is, because there have been judges that have already decided that you don't have a constitutional one.
They do have the same rights at present. You are the one that wants to change that. So defend the change. I don't have to do shit, since I like the current system. If you can't come up with a reason other than 'I say so', it doesn't look real good for your argument.
dutchguyjack
Member
You're just citing the law here. I'm asking for moral reasons.
Fahrenheit
Banned
DoD says they are going to question without giving him his rights (lol giving rights). What are you talking about? Arguing in bad faith? What does that mean?
All men are create dequal IS a moral reason.
No, they say that they are going to question him without reading the Miranda warning. He still has all the rights that the miranda warning would inform him of, and I'm sure he is aware of them. This has been stated repeatedly, but you have been willfully ignoring the fact.
They are planning to question him under the "Public Safety exception" to Miranda for a limited period of time, not indefinitely. The exception was established by the Supreme Court and predates the Patriot Act by about... 17 years. Like it it not, it's within the scope of the law and I don't have a problem with it. They want to know if there's anything else out there, like accomplices or another attack coming.
Fahrenheit
Banned
This is 2 days after the fact, still talking about questing him without his rights.
dutchguyjack
Member
I'm saying it should change because it does not make moral sense for the law to protect individuals who commit acts of terrorism.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Nice distinction baddie, this dude is never going to see a court room. Hes gonna end up in Club Gitmo (the same place Obama ran on closing that ya know is still open)
And before they question him, they are now obligated to read them. But they aren't going to jeopardize his life to wake him from sedation and read him his rights.
Megalosaro
Banned
You could make an argument that the law shouldn't "protect" people who commit murder, child molestation, etc.
The law isn't there to protect criminals. It is there to protect those who didn't commit crimes.
The law isn't there to protect criminals. It is there to protect those who didn't commit crimes.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Speeding is an act of terrorism, how much terror does a car whipping past you at 90 instill? Speeders also kill 10s of thousands a year. Should speeders get there rights after hitting a bus full of kids?
Because he's unconscious with a tube down his throat in the hospital.
And again, he hasn't lost any rights. He just isn't being read a warning about them. (hypothetically, that we know of, based on 3rd party media reports that might not be up to date...)
jakonovski
Member
The law isn't omniscient, that's why. All your posts come off as if everything about crime investigations was crystal clear and there was never doubt about anything.
I don't think you understand, so let's go through this once again slowly. The purpose of Miranda warning is just to make sure people know their rights and to prevent coercive interrogations. His rights will be protected regardless of whether the warning is given, because that's how scotus formulated the concept.
So, beacuse you say so. :/ Convincing. Have you considered the fact that in many cases there is not clear cut proof of who committed the act initially? So you are advocating all suspects of terrorism be subject to a loss of rights. Unless you want to have some sort of tribunal to determine who is really obviously guilty of the act of terrorism so we can then reduce their rights... wait a minute, that sounds suspiciualy like a trial!
Would you like to bet on this? Because I foresee a highly publicized court case, if he even lives through this.
Fahrenheit
Banned
So ill pop back in this thread after they question him. Hope you are all right, that he will get his rights but i dont think he will. Hope I dont get to say I told you so
dutchguyjack
Member
Speeding is an act of terrorism? I think you should check your definitions.
I'm speaking of cases with irrefutable evidence, not cases where the person can only be accused of the act with some non-conclusive evidence. For other cases the person should retain the rights until they are proven guilty.
Read what I said, I made it very clear that the rights should only be revoked when the case has clear cut proof. I never said that everybody that is suspected of terrorism should lose their rights.
Fair enough. And for the record, I'm sorry we all ganged up on you.
Half and half
Member
The entire world is watching this. I don't think they'll fuck this one up.
Who determines when the proof is irrefuteable?
Is that actually likely given he is a US citizen, and it doesn't seem like they were affiliated with any organized terror group?
As for Gitmo remaining open, that's down to congress being the blocking factor given they wouldn't allow prisoners to be relocated to the US, right?
Once you change the laws to decide that some people aren't worth human rights or citizenship because of something they did, things become incredibly dangerous for the all of us and the rest of the laws lose all meaning.
No, you should pop in after he is in the court and they have addressed whether his fifth amendment rights have been violated, because that's all it's about.
This is way too high profile for it not to go to trial, there is no way they would get away with just sending him down to Gitmo.
Fahrenheit
Banned
dutchguyjack
Member
jakonovski
Member
Like that Sunil dude. Guilty as fuck, no doubt about it.
Half and half
Member
Ever been wrong when you were absolutely convinced of something?
Even the brightest people make mistakes.
Fahrenheit
Banned
The NDAA says they can and thats far more scary then any bomber
Fuckin' LOL.
Did you know that they have to waste a lot of time these days to train jury members out of this mindset in the USA, because real life doesn't work like CSI and forensic evidence is rarely useful. So they'll use hours prepping jurors and explaining that 'no, you'll have to make a decision even though the DNA evidence and zoomed enhance shots aren't there'.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Speeding past granny as she tried to get to Church, I bet shes terrified. Or the kids in the bus that the speeders SUV just plowed into. Bet the word "terror" could be used to describe there feelings.
Oh good lord. You've not even asnwered the simplest question. What will be the scientific evidence that is considered irrefuteable proof. What scientific evidence was there in this case that provides irrefuteable proof?
dutchguyjack
Member
Science is not just forensic investigation. Ask yourself, why do we know that this person is guilty? Is it because we really want him to be? Or is it because he killed a police officer, threw bombs at the police, and ended the night with a shoot out, resulting in being incapacitated?
Given that we have camera footage showing him placing the device in the crowd of people, as well as the whole on-the-run situation, we can place the events together and logically derive that this person is guilty. We can construct logical formulae that place the facts together in an unambiguous and unbiased manner, and logically prove that this person is guilty without the need of a court. If you really want to go that far, considering we already have all the evidence that is necessary to prove his guilt.
indigo-cyclops
Member
So now forensic evidence is rarely useful or do you mean to say many possible jurors believe it is just like the movies and television? I can't believe that DNA evidence and other forensic fields are rarely useful.
WHO determines when it is irrefuteable? Or do we have public votes on it?
dutchguyjack
Member
Is camera footage showing him placing a bomb in a crowd of people not irrefutable? It is not someone that determines if it is irrefutable. It's the quality of the evidence that makes it irrefutable. It's never irrefutable by decision.
And he shouldn't have any chance whatsoever to defend himself from this supposedly irrefutable proof? It's all very compelling circumstantial evidence, but none of it is irrefutable.
No, it's not irrefutable. He could pull the bomb out of his backpack and throw it at the crowd and it wouldn't be irrefutable.
jakonovski
Member
Is that the footage of Sunil placing a bomb?
Bad choice of words maybe. It goes more like this typically: someone's shot in a parking lot. There are no fibres, no prints, no tire tracks, no dna, the bullet probably won't tell that much unless you also find the weapon which probably won't be found because it's been tossed into a river. There are no cameras or footage. Because of shows like CSI, though, people have been taught to expect irrefutable scientific evidence before they make a judgment.
- Status