Boston Bombers: Murderers or Terrorists?

[Eddie]

This whole enemy combatant versus trial is another one of those things that is interesting to me.

The conservative/republicans say they are concerned about having rights be infringed upon. They are upset about the patriot act and a loss of freedoms. They don't necessarily trust the government, etc. Yet in my short drive during lunch as I flipped radio stations, I heard at least three of them express frustration that the younger brother will not be treated as an enemy combatant. They want him, as a US citizen, to undergo "harsh" interrogation to get as much information as you can from him. Now, I'll give you that the evidence against this kid is staggering. It is inconceivable that he might not be guilty. And he might know stuff that is important to stopping future attacks. I get that.

But how would these same folks respond if other random citizens who were believed to have information about possible attacks were picked up and held without hearing, without evidence, and then subject to harsh interrogation techniques based on what they might know?

Strange to consider.

[Eddie]

double post...

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'm not following the Miranda rights controversy. I'm thinking they likely have enough evidence to prosecute him without needing his confession. Is he giving information to the authorities without having his Miranda rights read first?

Now, I'm not a criminal attorney, but Miranda rights aren't necessary for arresting someone. They're necessary for questioning someone in custody.

It seems he's not being interviewed and providing information in writing. Is there any reason to believe the investigators didn't read him his Miranda rights before they started questioning him? Seriously, what's with all the concern over his Miranda rights?

I think this is an important point that is escaping a lot of people. There's no fundamental right to Miranda warnings, you only have to receive Miranda warnings if they need information from you in order to prosecute you. They're not violating the constitution if they don't read him his Miranda rights. In fact, they can question and hold the kid in custody without an attorney even if he requests one -- they just can't use the information they get from him to prosecute him.

[Uncle Ted]

This whole enemy combatant versus trial is another one of those things that is interesting to me.

The conservative/republicans say they are concerned about having rights be infringed upon. They are upset about the patriot act and a loss of freedoms. They don't necessarily trust the government, etc. Yet in my short drive during lunch as I flipped radio stations, I heard at least three of them express frustration that the younger brother will not be treated as an enemy combatant. They want him, as a US citizen, to undergo "harsh" interrogation to get as much information as you can from him. Now, I'll give you that the evidence against this kid is staggering. It is inconceivable that he might not be guilty. And he might know stuff that is important to stopping future attacks. I get that.

But how would these same folks respond if other random citizens who were believed to have information about possible attacks were picked up and held without hearing, without evidence, and then subject to harsh interrogation techniques based on what they might know?

Strange to consider.

I think if folks actually knew what was going on at Gitmo they would change their opinions. Obama is such a disappointment for not closing it down when he promised he would.

I get the impression based on the father's statement the younger brother was like a puppy dog following his brother around. Sure he needs to pay for his crime but it seems it was the older brother that had any useful information. The russians warned us about the older brother. The other brother made visits back home and there were apparently good reasons the russians knew something was up. Reasons enough they felt it was important to tip off our FBI.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Wait so you don't agree that constitution should change with the times? Are you not in favor of women, blacks, and non-landowners voting? Seems like a weird argument.

The constitution does change through the amendment process which fixed the issues you cited. It's silly for people that don't like certain parts of the constitution (e.g. the 2nd Amendment) to say a bunch of dudes from the 18th century thought up the whole claptrap and that it should no longer be applicable. They installed the amendment process to fix whatever issues 2/3 of the representatives of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures identify that need fixing. The constitution is the consent given by the states (and in return its citizens) for the federal government to both exist and govern over them. The compromise was that the federal government would not exceed the boundaries contained in the articles and Amendments, otherwise they would never have agreed to it. If those boundaries are to change it's up to the people and their elected representatives to change them -- it's not a decision the government and a few opinion leaders are allowed to make.

[cougjunkie]

Older brother a person of interest in an unsolved triple homicide.

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bomb-su...opstories.html

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[myboynoah]

Older brother a person of interest in an unsolved triple homicide.

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bomb-su...opstories.html

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

And to think he's getting the straight shot to heaven and the 47 virgins. Their's is one crazy trickster deity.

[NorthShoreCoug]

The constitution does change through the amendment process which fixed the issues you cited. It's silly for people that don't like certain parts of the constitution (e.g. the 2nd Amendment) to say a bunch of dudes from the 18th century thought up the whole claptrap and that it should no longer be applicable. They installed the amendment process to fix whatever issues 2/3 of the representatives of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures identify that need fixing. The constitution is the consent given by the states (and in return its citizens) for the federal government to both exist and govern over them. The compromise was that the federal government would not exceed the boundaries contained in the articles and Amendments, otherwise they would never have agreed to it. If those boundaries are to change it's up to the people and their elected representatives to change them -- it's not a decision the government and a few opinion leaders are allowed to make.

Well said, CMBF. As a statistician, I remember getting in a bit of an argument with a fellow statistician about 10 years ago who wanted the government to use statistical techniques to improve the accuracy of the census. In one sense, I understood and agreed with him, but for apportionment purposes, the constitution specifically requires an enumeration - a count, not an estimate based on a sample, even though a well-designed sample will almost certainly provide a more accurate number. I insisted that if you want to use statistical methods, you first must amend the constitution.

[Katy Lied]

Tsarnaev: 30 for 30.

[byu71]

And to think he's getting the straight shot to heaven and the 47 virgins. Their's is one crazy trickster deity.

I thought it was a number between 90-100. I would hope one would be also provided with an unending supply of energy drinks.