explosions at marathon

[HJS]

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ ... fair-trial

[DomingoOrtiz]

Back on topic for a second...

Up close and personal pics from the shootout

The one taken in his roommate's bedroom is scary shit.

Gone

UPDATE 3:20PM 4/23/2013: I have decided to take down the photos during the ongoing investigation.
On Thursday night [Friday morning] at 12:45am EST. I was in my living room working on my computer when I heard multiple “pops” coming from outside. At that point, I had no idea that I was about to become an eye witness to the biggest news story in the country.

[BCMurt09]

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/petition-to-guarantee-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-the-right-to-a-fair-trial

God, I just hate people sometimes

Someone explain to me how Sandy Hook was an "inside job."

[DavidGordonsFoot]

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/petition-to-guarantee-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-the-right-to-a-fair-trial

God, I just hate people sometimes

Someone explain to me how Sandy Hook was an "inside job."

BCEagles25 would be happy to.

[twballgame9]

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/petition-to-guarantee-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-the-right-to-a-fair-trial

God, I just hate people sometimes

Someone explain to me how Sandy Hook was an "inside job."

These people are just sad. You really couldn't have much more evidence than this - one of the reasons why Miranda was irrelevant.

[talon]

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/petition-to-guarantee-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-the-right-to-a-fair-trial

I don't think he's being framed as part of a conspiracy, but I don't see why he shouldn't have the right to a fair trial. And since MA is a bunch of anti-death penalty pussies and he committed all his crimes in MA, I hope the feds go after a life sentence.

[twballgame9]

What indication is there that he will not receive a fair trial?

[angrychicken]

What indication is there that he will not receive a fair trial?

I'm pretty sure that they will make very sure that he gets a fair trial.

[twballgame9]

What indication is there that he will not receive a fair trial?

I'm pretty sure that they will make very sure that he gets a fair trial.

Yup

[pick6pedro]

Classic misdirection - support a fair trial (by the way they are innocent). How many dickholes supported it without realizing the person behind it thinks they are wrongly accused?

Just saw a Stephen Lynch ad leveraging the tragedy for his political gain. I hope he gets hammered for it.

I wonder how many "this is our fucking city" t-shirt millionaires will emerge in the next couple months.

Fom tremendous tragedy comes tremendous humanity comes tremendous exploitation.

[BCEagles25]

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/petition-to-guarantee-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-the-right-to-a-fair-trial

God, I just hate people sometimes

Someone explain to me how Sandy Hook was an "inside job."

BCEagles25 would be happy to.

if I had any doubt there'd be a fair trial then I'd certainly sign it.

[MattTheEagle]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

[innocentbystander]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

i would catergorize him as an "illegal combatant" since he did not wear a uniform

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html

Let's speak to the Perennially Outraged as if they were the fully grown, post-pubescent children they pride themselves on being.

What is the obvious difference between an enemy Prisoner of War, and an Unlawful Combatant? Suppose two of them were standing in a line-up. What one glaringly obvious thing sets them apart?

That's right! One is wearing a uniform, and the other isn't.

And why do soldiers wear uniforms?

It certainly is not to protect the soldier. As a matter of fact, a soldier's uniform is actually a big flashing neon arrow pointing to some kid that says to the enemy, SHOOT ME!

And that's one of the things a uniform is for. It makes the soldier into a target to be killed.

Now if that's all there was to it, you might say that the whole uniform thing is not such a groovy idea. BUT! What a uniform also does -- the corollary to the whole idea of a uniformed person is to say that if the individual wearing a uniform is a legitimate target, then the person standing next to him in civilian clothes is not.

By wearing uniforms, soldiers differentiate themselves to the enemy. They assume additional risk in order to protect the civilian population. In other words, by identifying themselves as targets with their uniforms, the fighters provide a Sanctuary to the unarmed civilian population.

And this Sanctuary is as old as human history. The first civilized people on Earth, these very same Iraqis, who had cities and agriculture and arts and letters when my ancestors were living in caves, wore uniforms as soldiers of Babylon. This is an ancient covenant, and willfully breaking it is unspeakably dishonorable.

send him to Gitmo or have him executed as a spy

[pick6pedro]

Holy cow. It's amazing how many people who praise the Constitution will completely ignore it when they are feeling overly emotional.

[Reverend Mike]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

Matt, you just told a couple hundred law-talkin guys that you don't respect the rule of law. You trust government flunkies to play by whatever rules they want which is super swell when they are stringing up some caucasian goons who murdered 4 people, but it is not swell at all when they start applying those standards all willy nilly.

[hansen]

Holy cow. It's amazing how many people who praise the Constitution will completely ignore it when they are feeling overly emotional.

who needs the constitution when you have legalzoom

[twballgame9]

I respect the constitution. He will get a fair trial. And he is toast.

[MattTheEagle]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

Matt, you just told a couple hundred law-talkin guys that you don't respect the rule of law. You trust government flunkies to play by whatever rules they want which is super swell when they are stringing up some caucasian goons who murdered 4 people, but it is not swell at all when they start applying those standards all willy nilly.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am only suggesting we carve out a narrow exception to terrorists. I am no constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has already determined that certain people are not entitled to full due process rights in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I believe someone who engages in an act of terrorism should be deemed as an enemy of the state who, if they once received citizenship, has voluntarily renounced it. This wouldn't be any different than how we treat enemy combatants in military tribunals, which the US government has legitimized despite it being something less than a "fair trial." I believe murderers, even mass murderers, are entitled to a fair trial, but here we are dealing with acts of terrorism as acknowledged by the President.

I don't mean to get into a debate, I just want to be clear that I do support the Constitution and rule of law. I understand most of the lawyers on this board disagree with me. I just happen to come out the other way believing in the instance of terrorism, a fair trial should not be constitutionally required.

[angrychicken]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

i would catergorize him as an "illegal combatant" since he did not wear a uniform

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html

Let's speak to the Perennially Outraged as if they were the fully grown, post-pubescent children they pride themselves on being.

What is the obvious difference between an enemy Prisoner of War, and an Unlawful Combatant? Suppose two of them were standing in a line-up. What one glaringly obvious thing sets them apart?

That's right! One is wearing a uniform, and the other isn't.

And why do soldiers wear uniforms?

It certainly is not to protect the soldier. As a matter of fact, a soldier's uniform is actually a big flashing neon arrow pointing to some kid that says to the enemy, SHOOT ME!

And that's one of the things a uniform is for. It makes the soldier into a target to be killed.

Now if that's all there was to it, you might say that the whole uniform thing is not such a groovy idea. BUT! What a uniform also does -- the corollary to the whole idea of a uniformed person is to say that if the individual wearing a uniform is a legitimate target, then the person standing next to him in civilian clothes is not.

By wearing uniforms, soldiers differentiate themselves to the enemy. They assume additional risk in order to protect the civilian population. In other words, by identifying themselves as targets with their uniforms, the fighters provide a Sanctuary to the unarmed civilian population.

And this Sanctuary is as old as human history. The first civilized people on Earth, these very same Iraqis, who had cities and agriculture and arts and letters when my ancestors were living in caves, wore uniforms as soldiers of Babylon. This is an ancient covenant, and willfully breaking it is unspeakably dishonorable.

send him to Gitmo or have him executed as a spy

Full on stupid.

He's toast if they play this by the book.

[apbc12]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

Matt, you just told a couple hundred law-talkin guys that you don't respect the rule of law. You trust government flunkies to play by whatever rules they want which is super swell when they are stringing up some caucasian goons who murdered 4 people, but it is not swell at all when they start applying those standards all willy nilly.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am only suggesting we carve out a narrow exception to terrorists. I am no constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has already determined that certain people are not entitled to full due process rights in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I believe someone who engages in an act of terrorism should be deemed as an enemy of the state who, if they once received citizenship, has voluntarily renounced it. This wouldn't be any different than how we treat enemy combatants in military tribunals, which the US government has legitimized despite it being something less than a "fair trial." I believe murderers, even mass murderers, are entitled to a fair trial, but here we are dealing with acts of terrorism as acknowledged by the President.

I don't mean to get into a debate, I just want to be clear that I do support the Constitution and rule of law. I understand most of the lawyers on this board disagree with me. I just happen to come out the other way believing in the instance of terrorism, a fair trial should not be constitutionally required.

What makes this kid different from, say, the asshole in Colorado who shot up the movie theater?

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

Matt, you just told a couple hundred law-talkin guys that you don't respect the rule of law. You trust government flunkies to play by whatever rules they want which is super swell when they are stringing up some caucasian goons who murdered 4 people, but it is not swell at all when they start applying those standards all willy nilly.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am only suggesting we carve out a narrow exception to terrorists. I am no constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has already determined that certain people are not entitled to full due process rights in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I believe someone who engages in an act of terrorism should be deemed as an enemy of the state who, if they once received citizenship, has voluntarily renounced it. This wouldn't be any different than how we treat enemy combatants in military tribunals, which the US government has legitimized despite it being something less than a "fair trial." I believe murderers, even mass murderers, are entitled to a fair trial, but here we are dealing with acts of terrorism as acknowledged by the President.

I don't mean to get into a debate, I just want to be clear that I do support the Constitution and rule of law. I understand most of the lawyers on this board disagree with me. I just happen to come out the other way believing in the instance of terrorism, a fair trial should not be constitutionally required.

What makes this kid different from, say, the asshole in Colorado who shot up the movie theater?

is the answer IEDs? in my mind, that's a game changer... assault rifles are one thing but garage built bombs are a different animal

EDIT - i have no gun owners agenda and my comment was not meant to further any gun owner agenda.

[NotoriousOrange]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

Matt, you just told a couple hundred law-talkin guys that you don't respect the rule of law. You trust government flunkies to play by whatever rules they want which is super swell when they are stringing up some caucasian goons who murdered 4 people, but it is not swell at all when they start applying those standards all willy nilly.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am only suggesting we carve out a narrow exception to terrorists. I am no constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has already determined that certain people are not entitled to full due process rights in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I believe someone who engages in an act of terrorism should be deemed as an enemy of the state who, if they once received citizenship, has voluntarily renounced it. This wouldn't be any different than how we treat enemy combatants in military tribunals, which the US government has legitimized despite it being something less than a "fair trial." I believe murderers, even mass murderers, are entitled to a fair trial, but here we are dealing with acts of terrorism as acknowledged by the President.

I don't mean to get into a debate, I just want to be clear that I do support the Constitution and rule of law. I understand most of the lawyers on this board disagree with me. I just happen to come out the other way believing in the instance of terrorism, a fair trial should not be constitutionally required.

What makes this kid different from, say, the asshole in Colorado who shot up the movie theater?

I am not advocating Matt's position. But In answer to APBC, IMO the difference is - the Colorado guy acted out of mental illness - these two acted out of a Jihadist mentality and religious & political beliefs .

There are networks of terrorists who are current and future threats - not so much in the way of networks of mentally ill people

[b0mberMan]

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am only suggesting we carve out a narrow exception to terrorists. I am no constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has already determined that certain people are not entitled to full due process rights in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I believe someone who engages in an act of terrorism should be deemed as an enemy of the state who, if they once received citizenship, has voluntarily renounced it. This wouldn't be any different than how we treat enemy combatants in military tribunals, which the US government has legitimized despite it being something less than a "fair trial." I believe murderers, even mass murderers, are entitled to a fair trial, but here we are dealing with acts of terrorism as acknowledged by the President.

I don't mean to get into a debate, I just want to be clear that I do support the Constitution and rule of law. I understand most of the lawyers on this board disagree with me. I just happen to come out the other way believing in the instance of terrorism, a fair trial should not be constitutionally required.

I think your mistake here is you are assuming an IB-like "there will be a definition of terrorism and it is LAW and it will never change" when the fact is, since 9/11, both administrations have shown flexibility when they go to define terrorism, enemy combatants, or anything else to fit the strategy they'd like to take. I think your justification earlier was that the President called this an act of terror on TV. What is the definition that he employed when he said this? Was it his judgement? Or did the act fit a pre-defined legal definition?

He's an American citizen, like it or not. He should be tried as an American citizen. What is the worry? A jury of his peers will exonerate him?

[apbc12]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

Matt, you just told a couple hundred law-talkin guys that you don't respect the rule of law. You trust government flunkies to play by whatever rules they want which is super swell when they are stringing up some caucasian goons who murdered 4 people, but it is not swell at all when they start applying those standards all willy nilly.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am only suggesting we carve out a narrow exception to terrorists. I am no constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has already determined that certain people are not entitled to full due process rights in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I believe someone who en gages in an act of terrorism should be deemed as an enemy of the state who, if they once received citizenship, has voluntarily renounced it. This wouldn't be any different than how we treat enemy combatants in military tribunals, which the US government has legitimized despite it being something less than a "fair trial." I believe murderers, even mass murderers, are entitled to a fair trial, but here we are dealing with acts of terrorism as acknowledged by the President.

I don't mean to get into a debate, I just want to be clear that I do support the Constitution and rule of law. I understand most of the lawyers on this board disagree with me. I just happen to come out the other way believing in the instance of terrorism, a fair trial should not be constitutionally required.

What makes this kid different from, say, the asshole in Colorado who shot up the movie theater?

I am not advocating Matt's position. But In answer to APBC, IMO the difference is - the Colorado guy acted out of mental illness - these two acted out of a Jihadist mentality and religious & political beliefs .

There are networks of terrorists who are current and future threats - not so much in the way of networks of mentally ill people

A) I would dispute your contention that a person can place a bomb in a public place, aimed at killing aas many innocent people as possible, without some mental illness, regardless of proclaimed motivation.

B) Nothing about giving the bomber his constitutional rights prevents the government from interrogating him and finding out what, if anything, he knows about other potential terrorists or plots.

C) If the issue is IEDs, James Holmes filled his apartment with all sorts of explosives in the hopes that neighbors and/or police would enter the apartment and get blown up.

D) If he doesn't get a fair trial because he's Muslim, you're doubling down on constitutional violations. Our constitution - and granting its protections even when we would really rather not- is part of what makes us better than the dicks who would kill innocent people to change us.

[talon]

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo weren't tried as enemy combatants. They certainly terrorized the shit out of the DC suburbs.

Other than just being really pissed off, what are the benefits to trying in military court instead of federal or state court?

[talon]

Stay classy, Women’s Blue Chip basketball League.

[NotoriousOrange]

I could care less whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev receives a fair trial. The issue here isn't identity, if it were, perhaps there should be some sort of preliminary hearing limited to this issue. Terrorists don't deserve the same rights as others. Overall I don't understand why he should receive more rights than we give enemy combatants at military tribunals? Mere citizenship is not enough when one chooses to completely disregard their oath to become a citizen.

Matt, you just told a couple hundred law-talkin guys that you don't respect the rule of law. You trust government flunkies to play by whatever rules they want which is super swell when they are stringing up some caucasian goons who murdered 4 people, but it is not swell at all when they start applying those standards all willy nilly.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am only suggesting we carve out a narrow exception to terrorists. I am no constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has already determined that certain people are not entitled to full due process rights in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I believe someone who en gages in an act of terrorism should be deemed as an enemy of the state who, if they once received citizenship, has voluntarily renounced it. This wouldn't be any different than how we treat enemy combatants in military tribunals, which the US government has legitimized despite it being something less than a "fair trial." I believe murderers, even mass murderers, are entitled to a fair trial, but here we are dealing with acts of terrorism as acknowledged by the President.

I don't mean to get into a debate, I just want to be clear that I do support the Constitution and rule of law. I understand most of the lawyers on this board disagree with me. I just happen to come out the other way believing in the instance of terrorism, a fair trial should not be constitutionally required.

What makes this kid different from, say, the asshole in Colorado who shot up the movie theater?

I am not advocating Matt's position. But In answer to APBC, IMO the difference is - the Colorado guy acted out of mental illness - these two acted out of a Jihadist mentality and religious & political beliefs .

There are networks of terrorists who are current and future threats - not so much in the way of networks of mentally ill people

A) I would dispute your contention that a person can place a bomb in a public place, aimed at killing aas many innocent people as possible, without some mental illness, regardless of proclaimed motivation.

B) Nothing about giving the bomber his constitutional rights prevents the government from interrogating him and finding out what, if anything, he knows about other potential terrorists or plots.

C) If the issue is IEDs, James Holmes filled his apartment with all sorts of explosives in the hopes that neighbors and/or police would enter the apartment and get blown up.

D) If he doesn't get a fair trial because he's Muslim, you're doubling down on constitutional violations. Our constitution - and granting its protections even when we would really rather not- is part of what makes us better than the dicks who would kill innocent people to change us.

As I highlighted in the above I am not advocating for Matt's position and am for a fair trial for him, and all Muslims, or any people grouped by religion. That being said terrorists are different from mentally ill people, and there needs to be different ways of dealing with each. There needs to be an ability to act quickly and efficiently when there is an imminent terrorist threat. It is not the same as a run of the mill crime.

[twballgame9]

I am still confused as to what constitutional rights this dbag has been deprived.

[NotoriousOrange]

I am not aware of any Teddy

[twballgame9]

Someone is sure to say Miranda again, which is annoying.