Originally posted by Pabmusic
View Post
Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostPossibly because whether or not the two were part of a wider conspiracy was at issue?Originally posted by amateur51 View PostMany thanks for clarifying that, Pabs :ok:
I think that Mr Romero's caution is right
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostThe link I posted says this:
" ... A federal judge recently upheld the government's right to use such statements as direct evidence in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian man who was sentenced to life in prison for trying to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on 25 December 2009. He confessed to a nurse and spoke freely to FBI agents before being read the Miranda warning.
Legal rights advocates expressed concern about the use of the "public safety" exception in this case. The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union said every defendant was entitled to be read Miranda rights.
"The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule," Anthony Romero said in a statement. "We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions".
So it's not clear-cut. :erm:
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by aeolium View PostThe actual words used by Boilk which you thought were used without hyperbole were "Was it much different from this in 1940s Nazi Germany?" I thought it was very different and described in what ways. Do you disagree with my description?
Originally posted by aeolium View PostIf there's a predilection for comparing Western societies, democracies operating under the rule of law and with well-established human rights, to totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, maybe that's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it.
Comment
-
handsomefortune
democracies operating under the rule of law and with well-established human rights
secreted in the pages of uk mainstream press http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ja...cy?INTCMP=SRCH
in a domestic context 'THE rule of law' is surely compromised by several police organisations operating simultaneously?
g4s, for example, may not have much in common with the objectives of the met in keeping order, and mI5 is different again.
in addition evidence suggests that orgs may act 'strangely' in certain pressurised 'special circumstances'. there are loads of examples of this historically, and perhaps now is precisely the time for all generations, old and new, to remember, or learn about them anew, even if generalisations about nazis do have to be mentioned in the process! surely it's better to do your own research, draw your own conclusions than rely on snoop doggy dog, or the queen's words of 'wisdom'...or lionel shriver's for that matter?
:peacedove:
Comment
-
That said, the USA does sail close to the wind at times and sometimes goes too far (Guantanamo still exists, for instance).
Whose interests do you think it serves to make such a comparison?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Russ_H View PostI did not present my version of law enforcement, and you have not answered my question.
Originally posted by Boilk View PostThe simple answer is that you do what you can WITHIN the remit of the law.
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by aeolium View PostThere may well be Boston residents who are elderly refugees from the Nazi persecution and I think they would have understood the distinction between their earlier experiences and what was happening here.
I'm not clear as to why you asked the question about whose interests such comparisons might serve. I think it's important to ask the question whose interests a taboo on such comparisons might serve, because one possible answer could be people in positions of authority whose agenda includes pushing the envelope of the law in such a way as to gain acceptance of increasingly draconian measures. The comparison might "simply invite rejection" as you say but that doesn't necessarily make it less enlightening or useful. But surely the comparison in itself is a side-issue to the matters under discussion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post:steam: Here we go again
You don't "ignore" people by telling them you are "ignoring" them
that is what some would term "passive aggressive"
Actually, this is one of those occasions when I wish it was possible to hide this entire thread. It is alarming to see supposedly intelligent individuals coming with such deluded nonsense, such as equating the USA with Nazi Germany and somehow muddling up teenagers, law enforcement agencies, and terrorists. It worries me that a post such as boilks has not been universally condemned. Far too many contributors here seem to live in some sort of loony left fantasy land. If you're happy there, fair enough, although one day you might find the real world will intrude. Good luck with that.Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
Mark Twain.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostActually, this is one of those occasions when I wish it was possible to hide this entire thread.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostActually, this is one of those occasions when I wish it was possible to hide this entire thread.
An unprecedented comment on the FoR3 forum I believe and, I think, a somewhat revealing remark about the poster.
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by Mr Pee View Postdeluded nonsense, such as equating the USA with Nazi Germany and somehow muddling up teenagers, law enforcement agencies, and terrorists.
Boilk compared one event in the USA to what (as I've said before) would indeed have been a much more common occurrence in Nazi Germany. Have you actually watched all of the video he put in his post?
Nobody has "muddled" the categories you mention. If there's any muddle it lies with you I'm afraid. For example it seems to me very clear that if bombing innocent people in Boston is terrorism ("the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear"), bombing innocent people in Afghanistan must also be. A terrorist is someone who commits terrorism according to some definition of that word (the quoted one being from the US Army), wherever and to whomsoever they do it and for whatever reasons.
Comment
-
I'm not clear as to why you asked the question about whose interests such comparisons might serve.
I think it's important to ask the question whose interests a taboo on such comparisons might serve, because one possible answer could be people in positions of authority whose agenda includes pushing the envelope of the law in such a way as to gain acceptance of increasingly draconian measures. The comparison might "simply invite rejection" as you say but that doesn't necessarily make it less enlightening or useful.
Still, it is getting OT, as you say, so I shall shut up.
Comment
-
Comment