Originally posted by aeolium
View Post
Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?
Collapse
X
-
amateur51
-
Originally posted by aeolium View PostIt really should be possible to tell the difference, .
but if someone is beating you over the head with a big stick it matters little
Sadly, if the police are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us (as sometimes BUT NOT ALWAYS happens in the UK) then the comparison is not really hyperbole
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by MrGongGong View Postif the police are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us
I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same. If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it. I reckon we should all be keeping a close eye on how governments use the "threat of terrorism" to justify increasingly aggressive policing, surveillance and curtailment of freedoms.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostAs we see for example in the fact that the captured Tsarnaev brother wasn't given his constitutional right to silence, because apparently this doesn't need to apply in the case of terrorists.
I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same. If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it. I reckon we should all be keeping a close eye on how governments use the "threat of terrorism" to justify increasingly aggressive policing, surveillance and curtailment of freedoms.
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by Bryn View PostSorry Richard, but my understanding is that though there was some talk in advance that he would not be read his rights, when it came to his initial questioning, he was in fact read them and nodded to indicate that he understood them.
Comment
-
amateur51
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostAs we see for example in the fact that the captured Tsarnaev brother wasn't given his constitutional right to silence, because apparently this doesn't need to apply in the case of terrorists.
I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same. If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it. I reckon we should all be keeping a close eye on how governments use the "threat of terrorism" to justify increasingly aggressive policing, surveillance and curtailment of freedoms.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostSorry Richard, but my understanding is that though there was some talk in advance that he would not be read his rights, when it came to his initial questioning, he was in fact read them and nodded to indicate that he understood them. He also uttered the one word "No" in response to being asked if he could afford to pay for a lawyer to defend him.
Apparently he was questioned 'extensively' before being read his rights. This seems to be allowable in special circumstances.
Comment
-
-
I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same.
If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostThis deals with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22250956
Apparently he was questioned 'extensively' before being read his rights. This seems to be allowable in special circumstances.
See also:
Last edited by Bryn; 23-04-13, 13:27.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by aeolium View Post...If 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.
That said, the USA does sail close to the wind at times and sometimes goes too far (Guantanamo still exists, for instance).
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostI see no indication in that item linked to that he was actually "questioned 'extensively'" prior to being read his rights. "Mr Tsarnaev responded to questions mostly in writing. He nodded when asked if he was able to answer some questions and whether he understood his rights, the notes read." [My emphasis.] Indeed, the thrust of the article appears to me to be that his American citizenship and the lack of a perceived immediate threat from him precluded such questioning.
See also:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4032774.story
"Justice department officials said that in an effort to "gain critical intelligence", they decided to question Mr Tsarnaev "extensively" before giving him the so-called "Miranda" warning of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning.
The magistrate judge present at the bedside arraignment later advised Mr Tsarnaev of his rights and of the charges against him".
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Boilk View PostSo your version of "law enforcement" involves violations of the US Constitution (I thought observance of that was the law?), effectively imprisoning a town in their own homes, forcing businesses to close, and holding all residents within a 20-block distance at gunpoint and having them frisked. I wasn't aware that people can hide a 17 year-old teenager in their back pocket or up their T-shirt.
I take it that if there's an alleged bomber on the run in your town, you don't mind yourself and your family being screamed at, held and searched with multiple guns trained on you and your children? Shame on you Russ_H if you think this is "law enforcement" - it is quite literally terrorism.
Given a free hand, and assuming you were responsible for law enforcement in the town in question, how would
you have tackled the problem?
Comment
-
-
amateur51
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostOh? I was guided by the eighth and ninth paragraphs (my emphases):
"Justice department officials said that in an effort to "gain critical intelligence", they decided to question Mr Tsarnaev "extensively" before giving him the so-called "Miranda" warning of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning.
The magistrate judge present at the bedside arraignment later advised Mr Tsarnaev of his rights and of the charges against him".
Me? I know nothing :smiley:
Comment
-
Originally posted by amateur51 View PostHad Mr Tsarnaev been aware of his rights, would it have been permissible for him to remain silent anyway without the so-called "Miranda" warning being made? :erm:
Me? I know nothing :smiley:
"The Miranda warning comes from a 1966 Supreme Court ruling that protects suspects from involuntary self-incrimination. If prosecutors want to use at trial statements made by a defendant in custody, law enforcement officials must first have advised them of their rights.
However, justice department officials relied on a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that established an exception allowing prosecutors to use statements made by a defendant prior to the Miranda warning in response to questions from law enforcement officials about an immediate threat to the public, such as a bomb.
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
-
-
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostOh? I was guided by the eighth and ninth paragraphs (my emphases):
"Justice department officials said that in an effort to "gain critical intelligence", they decided to question Mr Tsarnaev "extensively" before giving him the so-called "Miranda" warning of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning.
The magistrate judge present at the bedside arraignment later advised Mr Tsarnaev of his rights and of the charges against him".
Comment
-
Comment