The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Is The Surviving Boston Marathon Terrorist an "Enemy Combatant?"

Citizen or not, he was not an American. There is no proof at this point that they were self-directed or otherwise.

Also, consider that there is very likely a wealth of information that we do not, and can not know concerning any ties to terrorist organizations. If they are seeking to charge him as an enemy combatant, then they likely have good reason to do so.

Get a hold of yourself Becky!

Every report that I've read about the suspect now in custody says that he's a Legal American.

aka An American Citizen.


The last time that I trusted my Government is when Bush said that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction."

$1.7 TRILLION DOLLARS, and nearly 5,000 American lives later, and a country more dived than ever, and for the wrong reasons, so as an American I'm not that quick or willing to believe that they've made this case yet.

Don't let your emotions overload your willingness to chuck the U.S. Constitution and our laws.
 
Um, if I could chime in here without insulting any of my fellow posters, it seems telling that the Justice Department has chosen NOT to read the man his Miranda warning (which the Supreme Court said must be done for citizen and non-citizen alike...the latter wrongly, in my opinion).

President Obama is in charge of the Justice Department. So, this is his decision...to do something that some posters here think must be a "Republican" maneuver.

The President is defying a leftist Supreme Court decision.

If this was a Republican President, y'all would be going bonkers.

Why am I am the first one to notice this?

Help me, Jesus!
 
Re: Is The Surviving Boston Marathon Terrorist an "Enemy Combatant?"

Um, if I could chime in here without insulting any of my fellow posters, it seems telling that the Justice Department has chosen NOT to read the man his Miranda warning (which the Supreme Court said must be done for citizen and non-citizen alike...the latter wrongly, in my opinion).

President Obama is in charge of the Justice Department. So, this is his decision...to do something that some posters here think must be a "Republican" maneuver.

The President is defying a leftist Supreme Court decision.

If this was a Republican President, y'all would be going bonkers.

Why am I am the first one to notice this?

Help me, Jesus!

No Insult. The supreme court ruled already that in a case where terror is involved the public safety clause can be invoked.

Obama is not doing the 'republican' move because under GWB republicans decided all terrorist were to be treated as combatants in the war on terror. Which is essentially an endless war with everyone who hates us or the west. It is illogical to pursue and misguided at best. GWB used that to do enhanced interrogation to some, torture to others. He also used it to create a people existing in limbo, to which both democrats and republicans have prevented from having military tribunals, which we have had for years in these situations of combatants. But I digress. Those are the folks at GITMO.

Now before I stray toooooo terribly far. The republicans and warhawks at the time felt the criminal justice system in the United States was too weak to try enemy combatants (ala terrorist) so they refused to do so. The argument was had and it came down that most people think if we give up who we are and what we are by not using our rule of law then terror has won. SO...Since Obama has been in office he has tried religious fucking nutter after religious nutter.... I mean terrorist after terrorist in civilian federal courts.

Here is the part where the safety clause comes in....

The first guy to have the public safety clause invoked was the shoe bomber. The public FLIPPED THE FUCK OUT.... so they read him his rights almost immediately after saying they were using the clause. .... then by the time it had arrived at the New Years Day Bomber... they interrogated that guy for a few days before reading his rights. Essentially they have been pushing that length of time envelope.

Finally, we arrive at now in which the Attorney General invoked the public safety clause before we had even caught these numb-nuts. They basically said ... we will interrogate the fuck out of them and then read the rights and try them. To that end a special interrogation team consisting of FBI and US Attorneys with descend upon the guy with the hole in him and ask him what they please before he gets right read.

Oh and here is the additional kicker, before this pile of human shit can talk he has to get better... so the public safety/no miranda time is going to be a week or until he is deemed safe to wake up and interrogate by the doctors. So maybe safety is gone??? unless it leads to a plot for the next huge event .... who knows.

Some folks feel it is eroding their rights BUT as it stands unless they intend to execute a terror plot they need not worry. Oh and ANYTHING said during the pre-mirand period for public safety CANNOT be used to try the person in court. So the accused has lost nothing. The info can be used to find devices of mass destruction or a lead that takes us to another terror cell.


BTW I know your not a dad fucker but everytime I see your avatar I think of Elroy Auto.... I am sorry but I always have to do a double take....

- - - Updated - - -

They said that two days ago; there would be no Mirandas here!

That is not what they said
 
Re: Is The Surviving Boston Marathon Terrorist an "Enemy Combatant?"

I say let Boston and MA have him - if the fed wants a bite after that, OK. He committed his crimes against the City of Boston and the State of MA. They get priority.

Start with the least possible charge, and work up the ladder. First up, Boston, for vandalism and disturbing the peace; then on to the Commonwealth, for murder; and finally to the federal government.

Let him be convicted and jailed for sequential sentences on the lesser charges, so he gets publicity as a petty criminal.

If it is determined that the individual currently in the hospital is indeed the individual who bombed the marathon, then I don't think the requisite characteristics of humanity have been demonstrated that would make him the object of our compassion. It isn't a question of justice vs vengeance, it is a question of containing a tumor-like entity in the way that is most expedient for the rest of us.

Citizen or not, he was not an American. There is no proof at this point that they were self-directed or otherwise.

Also, consider that there is very likely a wealth of information that we do not, and can not know concerning any ties to terrorist organizations. If they are seeking to charge him as an enemy combatant, then they likely have good reason to do so.

Citizen = American. Any other route is fascism, where the PTBs get to decide who counts and who doesn't, and so change the law to suit whatever goal holds sway in any given situation.

My gut feeling is he knows nothing, that his brother leaned on him and roped him in as a helper. It wouldn't even surprise me if he had no clue what he was carrying, that he just agreed to lend a hand to humor his fanatic older brother. If so, he's exactly the sort of prisoner suitable for a moon or Mars colony, where he could be sent and turned loose, leaving everyone satisfied that there's no way he could strike again, yet having a chance to start over.

Life sentences are barbarous cruelty for the young, unless it can be demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that the person deliberately, willingly, knowingly, and enthusiastically intended grievous harm to fellow humans.
 
There is NO court or legal precedent for NOT reading Miranda. We are in uncharted waters.

By not immediately notifying Tsarnaev of his Miranda rights, however, the government risks having Tsarnaev's pre-Miranda statements rendered inadmissible in a future trial if a court rejects the government's broader interpretation of the public safety exemption, which is based only on internal Department of Justice guidelines, not any prior court rulings.
[e.s.]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57580600/boston-bombing-suspect-enemy-combatant-or-criminal/

He is an US citizen - though that may not sit well - and deserves Miranda.
 
i honestly don't think the intent of our laws had this piece of shit in mind

in 2013 - with pressure cooker bombs with intent to kill, maim

it's interesting the fervor with which some here "defend" this guy - some say he was under his brother's influence - a stooge if u will

others say "he's an american"

i agree that you don't take him out back and shoot him - but it is tempting

and "torture" - i don't agree with - i think the word has been used/abused to suit a progressive wet dream

but we need to find out what this was about - was it two disenfranchised guys who happen to have been chechens?

or more

not sure what's worse frankly

i think we'd be better off if it was a group - at least i'd feel better about them being able to pull this off

if it was just the 2 pricks .......... there's a lotta pricks out there

and we gotta protect those pricks don't we

gorgeous am in PTown btw
 
Chance, I am not defending him. I am defending all who could be caught up in the maw of the authorities. We supposedly have "the rule of law" and it's time to show it.
 
The same Constitution pro gun people were waving around has other amendments in it too. Kinda funny how so many are willing to just ignore those.
 
Chance, I am not defending him. I am defending all who could be caught up in the maw of the authorities. We supposedly have "the rule of law" and it's time to show it.

I don't think u r defending him pal

I think u r defending the concept of him

And I get it

Just not as comfortable with it as u r

Others - not u

Are not as thoughtful
 
^ Jesus wept. I can't believe how thick some of the right wing lynch mob members can be. I honestly don't know why you waste the typing trying to explain basic, fundamental concepts to the 'hang 'em high' wild west boys.
 
More reading comprehension issues

Pity

Autopilot responses from partisans that don't reasonably or honestly reflect quoted posts

There's smart then there's smart
 
Getting pissy won't change the fact that you lost that argument.
 
One of the problems of judicial activism is that once the court invents these distortions of the Constitution, some people will believe they are basic rights. For the first 200 years or so of our country, the Miranda notion did not exist. Then it was "enacted" by the court in violation of Art. I Sec. 1. The Miranda rule is itself unconstitutional. Our democracy does not much when the court usurps the legislative function
It is virtually certain that the immigrant bomber has some information, however tiny, which will add to our knowledge of terrorist activities. Protecting Americans from such people is far, far more important than his supposed right be encouraged to be silent.
 
Getting pissy won't change the fact that you lost that argument.

:).

U haven't seen my pissy

And legal knowledge combined with a superiority complex with a dash of misquoting

Is pretty niche

Luckily for the rest of us
 
Benvolio, IF Miranda requirement is not grounded in the Constitution then neither can the public safety exception - found in the Miranda case - be. And that leaves us where? To vigilantism and the prosecutorial maw.

Note that the public safety exception has never been interpreted by any court and the sole guidelines on it are Justice Department guidelines, which same Justice Department endorsed torture.

It is far more prudent to rely on what we know - Miranda - than on what we don't.
 
One of the problems of judicial activism is that once the court invents these distortions of the Constitution, some people will believe they are basic rights. For the first 200 years or so of our country, the Miranda notion did not exist. Then it was "enacted" by the court in violation of Art. I Sec. 1. The Miranda rule is itself unconstitutional. Our democracy does not much when the court usurps the legislative function
It is virtually certain that the immigrant bomber has some information, however tiny, which will add to our knowledge of terrorist activities. Protecting Americans from such people is far, far more important than his supposed right be encouraged to be silent.

You mean like Bush v Gore or Citizens united? Yeah those right wing fucktards just love their judicial activism. Let's not even bring up legislative activism like the Patriot act. What a fuck you to the Constitution that was.

It is virtually certain that you have some information relating to crime, however tiny, which will add to our knowledge of criminal activities. Protecting Americans from such people is far, far more important than your supposed right be encouraged to be silent.
 
:).

U haven't seen my pissy

And legal knowledge combined with a superiority complex with a dash of misquoting

Is pretty niche

Luckily for the rest of us

Chance you get pissy on a regular basis. Usually when you've lost an argument. In fact when you start pulling that crap, one pretty much doesn't even need to read the exchange to know you got the worst end of it.
 
Back
Top