Uncategorized

This Is Why People Bomb Us

One of our favorite guest columnists, Amy Lazenby, has penned an articulate, well-researched and eminently sensible article as to why the federal government is violating the Constitution by denying due process to the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. In case you missed it, check out her must-read column…

One of our favorite guest columnists, Amy Lazenby, has penned an articulate, well-researched and eminently sensible article as to why the federal government is violating the Constitution by denying due process to the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.

In case you missed it, check out her must-read column by clicking here …

 

Not surprisingly this effort to impose “enemy combatant” status on 19-year-old Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who oh by the way is Civus Americanus, is being pushed by “neo-conservative” whores like U.S. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham – who just last month launched a scathing attack against their colleague Rand Paul for having the audacity to oppose drone strikes on U.S. citizens.

Once again, McCain and Graham are adopting a position that makes America less safe …

Well-fed by their corporate allies in the military-industrial complex, these guys want to spend trillions of tax dollars – and sacrifice thousands of American lives – by invading foreign countries (like Pakistan and, more recently Syria) on the thinnest of pretenses. But God forbid you disagree with those pretenses because that just means you hate America – and want to see it undone by evildoers.

What these fiscally liberal, crony capitalist warmongers habitually fail to comprehend is that invading countries without a compelling national interest (and protecting another country is NOT a compelling national interest) isn’t making us safer. In fact, such a policy does nothing but fuel the fires of radical extremism and anti-Americanism – making us less safe.

Similarly, the decision to shred the U.S. Constitution by denying due process to American citizens apprehended in connection with crimes – however mundane or gruesome – is also not making us safer. Why not? Because as soon as we heard Graham’s call for “enemy combatant” status regarding this suspect we could feel our blood beginning to boil. And when federal law enforcement agents (initially at least) heeded Graham’s call and refused to advise Tsarnaev of his rights under the law as an American citizen, we could feel that boil running over.

Fortunately for Graham and cowards of his ilk we’re pacifists (until a certain threshold of provocation is reached, anyway). We prefer civil disobedience and a defensive posture to more offensive measures. And unlike Graham we respect innocent life.

But there are a lot of people who aren’t pacifists – or whose threshold for provocation is much lower than ours. And not all of these people respect innocent life (to the extent any of us are really innocent).

Which brings us to an incredibly dangerous bottom line: By adopting this unconstitutional position the federal government has not made America safer, it has made us less safe … again. In fact its decision will no doubt spawn new armies (and incense existing ones) whose leaders will conclude – rightfully, we might add – that there is nothing to stop the government from assigning such status to any citizen under any circumstances it wants.

Translation? We are all enemy combatants – if the government decides to label us as such – and therefore we are all potentially targets of enhanced interrogation techniques (or drone strikes) based on illegally obtained intelligence.

Again, as we’ve stated before we have no problem with using these measures on foreign nationals with documented ties to terror organizations – but not American citizens.

And while it’s easy to say such deprivals of liberty would “only affect people proven to be plotting mischief,” such statements neglect to mention that the establishment of proof cannot exist independent of constitutionally guaranteed due process.

Or that “mischief” is whatever the government wants it to be …

Stripping liberty will never make America safer. In fact, actions such as those taken by the federal government in response to the Boston bombings are why people want to bomb us in the first place.

***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Laura Slams Into Louisiana Coast As Category Four Hurricane

FITSNews
Uncategorized

Obamacare: Not Working

FITSNews
Uncategorized

US Military Spending: A Black Hole

FITSNews

87 comments

yournightmare April 20, 2013 at 2:15 pm

shut up !

Reply
Bubbas Brother April 20, 2013 at 2:23 pm

What part of the “public safety exception” do you not understand?

These terrorists used improvised explosive devices all over Boston and the potential exists that there may be more as yet un exploded and that there may be more members to their “comittee of two”. This is precisely the reason the court decided the way it did in New York v. Quarles.

Reply
1stpalmetto April 21, 2013 at 9:56 pm

Are you a dumbass? Give up your rights but don’t give up mine. Did you serve? I did.

Reply
Bubbas Brother April 22, 2013 at 8:23 am

Still do serve – in fact I’m wearing my ugly ACU’s right now.

Reply
JC April 22, 2013 at 8:44 am

Did you even read the Quarles case? That situation dealt with a suspect who was still in a crowded grocery store and not yet in full custody of the police. In this case, the suspect has suffered serious injuries and is surrounded by armed guards in a wardened off wing at a hospital. How in the hell is he a threat to anyone? What a nation of cowards we are, ready to toss aside any and all rights at the behest of our police state government.

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 22, 2013 at 3:48 pm

You’re not being serious, are you? Have you ever heard of a terror suspect having knowledge of where additional explosive devices may be hidden, or even set for detonation? Luckily, the US courts are smart enough to understand this and have ruled in favor of the Quarles exception in previous terror cases (most notably the Khalil case).

Reply
The Colonel (R) April 20, 2013 at 2:23 pm

What part of the “public safety exception” do you not understand?

These terrorists used improvised explosive devices all over Boston and the potential exists that there may be more as yet un exploded and that there may be more members to their “comittee of two”. This is precisely the reason the court decided the way it did in New York v. Quarles.

Reply
1stpalmetto April 21, 2013 at 9:56 pm

Are you a dumbass? Give up your rights but don’t give up mine. Did you serve? I did.

Reply
The Colonel (R) April 22, 2013 at 8:23 am

Still do serve, I’m in year 28 getting ready to deploy for the third time – in fact I’m wearing my ugly ACU’s right now. Why do you ask?

Reply
JC April 22, 2013 at 8:44 am

Did you even read the Quarles case? That situation dealt with a suspect who was still in a crowded grocery store and not yet in full custody of the police. In this case, the suspect has suffered serious injuries and is surrounded by armed guards in a wardened off wing at a hospital. How in the hell is he a threat to anyone? What a nation of cowards we are, ready to toss aside any and all rights at the behest of our police state government.

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 22, 2013 at 3:48 pm

You’re not being serious, are you? Have you ever heard of a terror suspect having knowledge of where additional explosive devices may be hidden, or even set for detonation? Luckily, the US courts are smart enough to understand this and have ruled in favor of the Quarles exception in previous terror cases (most notably the Khalil case).

Reply
BigT April 20, 2013 at 2:24 pm

Making it easier for Muslim Animals to kill little boys is not Freedom…

Maybe you Brain Dead Liberal IDIOTS need to take a class on JUSTICE!!!!!!

You are so perverted, and have been told you are so Smart and sophisticated because you HATE America, you are Totally Ignorant about Right and Wrong..

Just because you have been told you are DIVERSE in your thought, does not mean your are not Idiots…(Which you are)…

Reply
1stpalmetto April 21, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Big T you’ve been watching too much MSM

Reply
BigT April 20, 2013 at 2:24 pm

Making it easier for Muslim Animals to kill little boys is not Freedom…

Maybe you Brain Dead Liberal IDIOTS need to take a class on JUSTICE!!!!!!

You are so perverted, and have been told you are so Smart and sophisticated because you HATE America, you are Totally Ignorant about Right and Wrong..

Just because you have been told you are DIVERSE in your thought, does not mean your are not Idiots…(Which you are)…

Reply
1stpalmetto April 21, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Big T you’ve been watching too much MSM

Reply
tomstickler April 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm

I have little love for McCain and Graham, but Homeland Security may have a valid reason for wanting to find out what Dzhokhar knows about Tamerlan’s recent seven-month long visit to Russia. Not Mirandizing prior to questioning merely means that the info thus gained may not be used against Dzhokhar in court. His Fifth Amendment rights remain.

Another Latin lesson: “sum” is the verb meaning “I am” so is not needed to describe Dzohkar as “civis Americanus.”

Sum, es, est: sumus, estis, sunt — from 1955 Latin I with Mr. Galt.

Reply
Right April 20, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Read Lazenby’s article. The info they get from him without Mirandizing him can definitely be used under the public safety exception, and they can go even further, according to this Justice Dept. memo:

“There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public
safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that
continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and
timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the
government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the
disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

Reply
tomstickler April 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Comment by a criminal defense lawyer on another blog:

“You don’t have a constitutional right to remain silent, exactly–you have a right against self-incrimination. It’s very common, for example, to compel the testimony of a witness when it does not incriminate him or her, and to remove the potential for self-incrimination by a grant of immunity, even over the objection of the witness to receiving immunity. If you won’t testify under such circumstances, you can be jailed until you do–and there are instances of people being jailed for years for this reason (it’s not punishment–it’s compelled obedience to court orders). That’s how the Constitution works, and I don’t know of any Supreme Court Justice in history–not Brennan, not Marshall, not Douglas, none–who ever suggested otherwise.

“What is the penalty for violating Miranda? Why, it’s exclusion of the evidence obtained by the violation. So, necessarily, if the prosecution doesn’t care to use the testimony, there is no penalty for not giving the Miranda warnings.

“And, I sincerely hope, nobody will call me a wimp on civil liberties for taking this position – this is me with my criminal defense lawyer hat on, telling you what I would tell my clients if they complained about not being given Miranda warnings – it only matters if you made a statement that the prosecution proposes to use against you.”

Perhaps that is too subtle a distinction for this discussion, the difference between the right to remain silent — based on the Miranda decision — and the right against self-incrimination — based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Reply
Right April 20, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Again, memo by DoJ, which trumps any comment by some guy who told you he was a defense attorney on a blog:

“Although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents
nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary
to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate
threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this
intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned
interrogation.”

They don’t ask for it unless they plan to use it against you, they can ask anything they want, and they can ask it in any manner they want. This is not difficult. Sorry if you can’t see it.

Reply
tomstickler April 20, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Many answers may have value without being needed for a prosecution. That’s what you appear unable to understand. The above cited policy applies only to interrogation. It does not imply that information obtained in unwarned interrogation may be used to prosecute in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

shifty henry April 20, 2013 at 5:01 pm

I understand it, and have no doubts about it – for a variety of reasons.
If you have a boiling pot on the stove and you throw in the Constitution, law, justice, equity, public safety, and individual rights, — which is going to rise to the top and get scooped onto the big platter first?
When I was assigned to a Mediterranean island some years back, I was given the standard lecture by my commanding officer — if I caused any screwup that caused any problem or embarrassment between the United States and the host country, the pecking order was (1) to maintain good relations with the host country, (2) then the Navy’s interests would be protected, and (3) my individual rights were last, last, and the very last.
I didn’t have any problems with that because I didn’t know what I could screw up, and I really didn’t have any choice. But I did see that policy put into action over the next two years by others to varying degrees!

tomstickler April 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm

I have little love for McCain and Graham, but Homeland Security may have a valid reason for wanting to find out what Dzhokhar knows about Tamerlan’s recent seven-month long visit to Russia. Not Mirandizing prior to questioning merely means that the info thus gained may not be used against Dzhokhar in court. His Fifth Amendment rights remain.

Another Latin lesson: “sum” is the verb meaning “I am” so is not needed to describe Dzohkar as “civis Americanus.”

Sum, es, est: sumus, estis, sunt — from 1955 Latin I with Mr. Galt.

Reply
Right April 20, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Read Lazenby’s article. The info they get from him without Mirandizing him can definitely be used under the public safety exception, and they can go even further, according to this Justice Dept. memo:

“There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public
safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that
continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and
timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the
government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the
disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

Reply
tomstickler April 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Comment by a criminal defense lawyer on another blog:

“You don’t have a constitutional right to remain silent, exactly–you have a right against self-incrimination. It’s very common, for example, to compel the testimony of a witness when it does not incriminate him or her, and to remove the potential for self-incrimination by a grant of immunity, even over the objection of the witness to receiving immunity. If you won’t testify under such circumstances, you can be jailed until you do–and there are instances of people being jailed for years for this reason (it’s not punishment–it’s compelled obedience to court orders). That’s how the Constitution works, and I don’t know of any Supreme Court Justice in history–not Brennan, not Marshall, not Douglas, none–who ever suggested otherwise.

“What is the penalty for violating Miranda? Why, it’s exclusion of the evidence obtained by the violation. So, necessarily, if the prosecution doesn’t care to use the testimony, there is no penalty for not giving the Miranda warnings.

“And, I sincerely hope, nobody will call me a wimp on civil liberties for taking this position – this is me with my criminal defense lawyer hat on, telling you what I would tell my clients if they complained about not being given Miranda warnings – it only matters if you made a statement that the prosecution proposes to use against you.”

Perhaps that is too subtle a distinction for this discussion, the difference between the right to remain silent — based on the Miranda decision — and the right against self-incrimination — based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

And, there is a difference between continued “unwarned interrogation” as allowed in the public safety exception memo, and actual attempts to use information thus gained in subsequent prosecution.

Reply
Right April 20, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Again, memo by DoJ, which trumps any comment by some guy who told you he was a defense attorney on a blog:

“Although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents
nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary
to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate
threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this
intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned
interrogation.”

They don’t ask for it unless they plan to use it against you, they can ask anything they want, and they can ask it in any manner they want. This is not difficult. Sorry if you can’t see it.

Reply
tomstickler April 20, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Many answers may have value without being needed for a prosecution. That’s what you appear unable to understand. The above cited policy applies only to interrogation. It does not imply that information obtained in unwarned interrogation may be used to prosecute in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

shifty henry April 20, 2013 at 5:01 pm

I understand it, and have no doubts about it – for a variety of reasons.
If you have a boiling pot on the stove and you throw in the Constitution, law, justice, equity, public safety, and individual rights, — which is going to rise to the top and get scooped onto the big platter first?
When I was assigned to a Mediterranean island some years back, I was given the standard lecture by my commanding officer — if I caused any screwup that caused any problem or embarrassment between the United States and the host country, the pecking order was (1) to maintain good relations with the host country, (2) then the Navy’s interests would be protected, and (3) my individual rights were last, last, and the very last.
I didn’t have any problems with that because I didn’t know what I could screw up, and I really didn’t have any choice. But I did see that policy put into action over the next two years by others to varying degrees!

Elea Phat In The Room April 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Mr. Graham you have met your useful life. It’s time for you to move on… hey guess what we know you’re a fag!! Please take your place on the liberal side of things. I am sure California can use you in same capacity.

Reply
Dick April 20, 2013 at 8:39 pm

You probably have fag family members and don’t know it.

Reply
Elea Phat In The Room April 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Mr. Graham you have met your useful life. It’s time for you to move on… hey guess what we know you’re a fag!! Please take your place on the liberal side of things. I am sure California can use you in same capacity.

Reply
Dick April 20, 2013 at 8:39 pm

You probably have fag family members and don’t know it.

Reply
Moman50 April 20, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Not that it matters,but does anyone really believe that this guy, who after all had a college scholarship ,REALLY doesnt know he has the right to remain silwnt and to have an attorney?

And please save me the Constitutional law lecture.Im just making a practical comment.

Reply
shifty henry April 20, 2013 at 6:51 pm

You’re correct, which is why it’s so curious that there are so many differing opinions here. All he has to do is say, “I want an attorney” and then shut up. But the big question is whether he will be allowed one under these circumstances. That’s what the argument is about. At this time I don’t know either his medical condition or his mental capacities. But I really do want to know what precedent will be set here.

Reply
Right April 20, 2013 at 10:39 pm

The point is that if they don’t read him his Miranda rights, he does NOT have the right to remain silent. They can compel him to talk without an attorney.

Reply
Moman50 April 21, 2013 at 11:10 am

How exactly are you going to “compel” a silent defendant to talk?Or are you suggesting they are not going to charge him with a crime?Thats unlikely.Indeed ,they are apparently going to charge him today.All he has to do is say,”I have nothing to say and I want a lawyer” and thats it.Unless,of course,Lindsay Grahams suggestion is adopted and he is charged as an “enemy combatant.”That is unlikely.

Reply
Right April 21, 2013 at 11:37 am

“How exactly are you going to “compel” a silent defendant to talk?”

Are you seriously unaware?

Reply
JohnQ April 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm

I think we should torture you to find out why you are advocating destroying our constitution.

Fucking asshole! Say what you mean you vile piece of shit!

Moman50 April 21, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Yes ,Tell us all.Enlighten us with your “wisdom.”

Mike at the Beach April 21, 2013 at 8:27 pm

Sorry friend, but that’s just not correct. Quarles case law is plain on that issue. SCOTUS provides a very detailed framework that defines when LE may apply the standard, and the use of the Quarles Public Safety Exception in no way impacts the voluntariness standard that dates back to Miranda. In other words, Quarles doesn’t allow for any kind of duress, torture, etc. It simply means that if there’s reasonable chance that a suspect may, I don’t know, have a bomb set up
somewhere that could maim and kill a few more innocent mommies and eight year olds, the cops probably ought to work that angle quick-like before they work on the rest of the case. Not nearly as dramatic as all of the hand-wringers wail, but the facts are usually boring compared to the prevailing rhetoric.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein April 21, 2013 at 9:17 pm

The point is that if they don’t read him his Miranda rights, he does NOT have the right to remain silent. They can compel him to talk.

Oh, bullshit!! He has the RIGHT to remain silent whether Mirandized or not. I suspect that the government has enough evidence to convict him even if he makes self incriminating statements, which WILL be inadmissible in court.

All Americans should be very fearful when the government starts denying US citizens their Constitutional rights, no matter how compelling the reason seems at the time.

Reply
Moman50 April 20, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Not that it matters,but does anyone really believe that this guy, who after all had a college scholarship ,REALLY doesnt know he has the right to remain silwnt and to have an attorney?

And please save me the Constitutional law lecture.Im just making a practical comment.

Reply
shifty henry April 20, 2013 at 6:51 pm

You’re correct, which is why it’s so curious that there are so many differing opinions here. All he has to do is say, “I want an attorney” and then shut up. But the big question is whether he will be allowed one under these circumstances. That’s what the argument is about. At this time I don’t know either his medical condition or his mental capacities. But I really do want to know what precedent will be set here.

Reply
Right April 20, 2013 at 10:39 pm

The point is that if they don’t read him his Miranda rights, he does NOT have the right to remain silent. They can compel him to talk.

Miranda v. Arizona established that “statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.”

If you make the “public safety exception,” you can compel a suspect to answer questions that may be self-incriminating without allowing him to consult with an attorney and use his answers against him in court.

Reply
Moman50 April 21, 2013 at 11:10 am

How exactly are you going to “compel” a silent defendant to talk?Or are you suggesting they are not going to charge him with a crime?Thats unlikely.Indeed ,they are apparently going to charge him today.All he has to do is say,”I have nothing to say and I want a lawyer” and thats it.Unless,of course,Lindsay Grahams suggestion is adopted and he is charged as an “enemy combatant.”That is unlikely.

Reply
Right April 21, 2013 at 11:37 am

“How exactly are you going to “compel” a silent defendant to talk?”

Are you seriously unaware?

Reply
JohnQ April 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm

I think we should torture you to find out why you are advocating destroying our constitution.

Fucking asshole! Say what you mean you vile piece of shit!

Moman50 April 21, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Yes ,Tell us all.Enlighten us with your “wisdom.”

Mike at the Beach April 21, 2013 at 8:27 pm

Sorry friend, but that’s just not correct. Quarles case law is plain on that issue. SCOTUS provides a very detailed framework that defines when LE may apply the standard, and the use of the Quarles Public Safety Exception in no way impacts the voluntariness standard that dates back to Miranda. In other words, Quarles doesn’t allow for any kind of duress, torture, etc. It simply means that if there’s reasonable chance that a suspect may, I don’t know, have a bomb set up
somewhere that could maim and kill a few more innocent mommies and eight year olds, the cops probably ought to work that angle quick-like before they work on the rest of the case. Not nearly as dramatic as all of the hand-wringers wail, but the facts are usually boring compared to the prevailing rhetoric.

Reply
TontoBubbaGoldstein April 21, 2013 at 9:17 pm

The point is that if they don’t read him his Miranda rights, he does NOT have the right to remain silent. They can compel him to talk.

Oh, bullshit!! He has the RIGHT to remain silent whether Mirandized or not. I suspect that the government has enough evidence to convict him even if he makes self incriminating statements, which WILL be inadmissible in court.

All Americans should be very fearful when the government starts denying US citizens their Constitutional rights, no matter how compelling the reason seems at the time.

Reply
BigT April 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm

So FITS says it’s OUR Fault some murderous Muslim Butcher declares Jihad on an 8-year-old boy, and blows him up…..

WOW!!!..you have to beiieve the curent occupant in the White House emboldens the Leftwing Nutjobs like FITS and Lizenby…

If FITS did not post this leftist Bull-$#!t, people would think I’m lying when I tell them what FITS and the rest of the liberals think of our country…

Unbelievable…Truly unbelievable…

Reply
BigT April 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm

So FITS says it’s OUR Fault some murderous Muslim Butcher declares Jihad on an 8-year-old boy, and blows him up…..

WOW!!!..you have to beiieve the curent occupant in the White House emboldens the Leftwing Nutjobs like FITS and Lizenby…

If FITS did not post this leftist Bull-$#!t, people would think I’m lying when I tell them what FITS and the rest of the liberals think of our country…

Unbelievable…Truly unbelievable…

Reply
'Bama April 20, 2013 at 5:42 pm

Who’se the hottie in the pic? I approve of her.

Reply
Rosa Klebb April 20, 2013 at 10:52 pm

She is my daughter Roula Klebb. She has a very good job with the Senator Graham and she has ways to make you talk.

Reply
'Bama April 20, 2013 at 5:42 pm

Who’se the hottie in the pic? I approve of her.

Reply
Rosa Klebb April 20, 2013 at 10:52 pm

She is my daughter Roula Klebb. She has a very good job with the Senator Graham and she has ways to make you talk.

Reply
Synthetic April 20, 2013 at 9:04 pm

First and foremost, Graham needs to GO – we need a formidable opponent against him in the primary. The State of SC needs to grow a backbone and get rid of this ________________. I sometimes agree with his desire to compromise, but when he blatantly goes against the Constitution (and I do not give one iota) – I served in the military like probably a lot of others on this board, but I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I would hope that eventually this guy gets taken out back and stoned by his victims, but I want this to happen per the Constitution. What is next? What additional liberties will be restrained or revoked. Is the IRS going to show up at my doorstep and call me a terrorist because I told some jerk IRS auditor the other day to pack sand and he told me his supervisor would get back to me within 24 hours (guess what – no call 72 hours latter).
No wonder the Federal government wants to take our guns or limit or rights to firearms.

Reply
Synthetic April 20, 2013 at 9:04 pm

First and foremost, Graham needs to GO – we need a formidable opponent against him in the primary. The State of SC needs to grow a backbone and get rid of this ________________. I sometimes agree with his desire to compromise, but when he blatantly goes against the Constitution (and I do not give one iota) – I served in the military like probably a lot of others on this board, but I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I would hope that eventually this guy gets taken out back and stoned by his victims, but I want this to happen per the Constitution. What is next? What additional liberties will be restrained or revoked. Is the IRS going to show up at my doorstep and call me a terrorist because I told some jerk IRS auditor the other day to pack sand and he told me his supervisor would get back to me within 24 hours (guess what – no call 72 hours latter).
No wonder the Federal government wants to take our guns or limit or rights to firearms.

Reply
BigT April 21, 2013 at 5:46 am

TRULY SICKENING…
FITS Is incredulous and fighting for the rights of a Child-Killing Terrorist…
But FITS has to be drug, screaming, for the scant mention of a Baby-killing, leftwing abortionist.
FITS, You are America AT ITS INDECENT WORST…and people like you are WHY we have sunk so low…

Reply
BigT April 21, 2013 at 5:46 am

TRULY SICKENING…
FITS Is incredulous and fighting for the rights of a Child-Killing Terrorist…
But FITS has to be drug, screaming, for the scant mention of a Baby-killing, leftwing abortionist.
FITS, You are America AT ITS INDECENT WORST…and people like you are WHY we have sunk so low…

Reply
CNSYD April 21, 2013 at 12:40 pm

“Graham and cowards of his ilk”. Does Sic Willie’s “ilk” include McCain? Sic Willie hides under his bed while heroes like McCain spend years in captivity.

Reply
JC April 22, 2013 at 8:49 am

McCain is no hero. The man has used his position of power to further the cause of perpetual war, increased state secrecy, increased state surveillance over its citizens and slavish devotion to Israel, all the while showing no respect to those who disagree with him. We as a country would be better off if he’d never have returned from Vietnam.

Reply
CNSYD April 22, 2013 at 9:17 am

JC, while McCain was a POW, were you in the next cell or were you hiding in Canada?

Reply
JC April 22, 2013 at 5:53 pm

I wasn’t born, but were I alive, I would not have participated in a war that served no purpose. I would not have been a part of the killing of civilians or the dropping of noxious chemicals on whole villages. Even still, that McCain served time in a POW camp does not excuse his neocon fearmongering today. Henri Petain was a WWI hero, but his establishment of the Vichy government made him a villain. McCain’s positions on multiple issues make him an enemy of the people.

Reply
CNSYD April 23, 2013 at 9:49 am

“I would not have been a part of the killing of civilians”. Therefore you are saying that you would not serve in ANY war. You want others to provide you with the blanket of freedom and then you want to condemn those who provide it. I had already determined you were not alive during that conflict as you exhibit all the attributes of your generation.

CNSYD April 21, 2013 at 12:40 pm

“Graham and cowards of his ilk”. Does Sic Willie’s “ilk” include McCain? Sic Willie hides under his bed while heroes like McCain spend years in captivity.

Reply
JC April 22, 2013 at 8:49 am

McCain is no hero. The man has used his position of power to further the cause of perpetual war, increased state secrecy, increased state surveillance over its citizens and slavish devotion to Israel, all the while showing no respect to those who disagree with him. We as a country would be better off if he’d never have returned from Vietnam.

Reply
CNSYD April 22, 2013 at 9:17 am

JC, while McCain was a POW, were you in the next cell or were you hiding in Canada?

Reply
JC April 22, 2013 at 5:53 pm

I wasn’t born, but were I alive, I would not have participated in a war that served no purpose. I would not have been a part of the killing of civilians or the dropping of noxious chemicals on whole villages. Even still, that McCain served time in a POW camp does not excuse his neocon fearmongering today. Henri Petain was a WWI hero, but his establishment of the Vichy government made him a villain. McCain’s positions on multiple issues make him an enemy of the people.

Reply
CNSYD April 23, 2013 at 9:49 am

“I would not have been a part of the killing of civilians”. Therefore you are saying that you would not serve in ANY war. You want others to provide you with the blanket of freedom and then you want to condemn those who provide it. I had already determined you were not alive during that conflict as you exhibit all the attributes of your generation.

William Tell April 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm

John Ashcroft, who helped draft the guidelines for the policy of not reading Miranda rights in cases like this, gave a good explanation of it on the radio this morning.

Ashcroft said that even if this suspect never spoke a word, there’s enough physical evidence to convict him of a federal capital offense: his blood and fingerprints on the car he hi-jacked (and kidnapped the driver to the ATM machine).

The most responsible for the DOJ to do to society at large is not to protect this one suspect’s rights but to learn from the suspect if his brother trained other people to make bombs, where and who they got their bomb-making training, any network of sympathizers, etc.

To see Fits jump into bed with the ACLU must be a first.

Reply
William Tell April 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm

John Ashcroft, who helped draft the guidelines for the policy of not reading Miranda rights in cases like this, gave a good explanation of it on the radio this morning.

Ashcroft said that even if this suspect never spoke a word, there’s enough physical evidence to convict him of a federal capital offense: his blood and fingerprints on the car he hi-jacked (and kidnapped the driver to the ATM machine).

The most responsible for the DOJ to do to society at large is not to protect this one suspect’s rights but to learn from the suspect if his brother trained other people to make bombs, where and who they got their bomb-making training, any network of sympathizers, etc.

To see Fits jump into bed with the ACLU must be a first.

Reply
9" April 21, 2013 at 1:20 pm

fits has absolutely no shame or conscience,you’re using this tragedy for your own personal gain,and getting a little too close to the definition of,’sociopath’…

Reply
9" April 21, 2013 at 1:20 pm

fits has absolutely no shame or conscience,you’re using this tragedy for your own personal gain,and getting a little too close to the definition of,’sociopath’…

Reply
Cicero April 21, 2013 at 2:22 pm

Yes, Islamist extremists bomb us because we don’t follow due process. When you read MEMRI or Al Qaeda websites, they rail against unreasonable searches and seizures and lack of access to legal counsel. The 9/11 terrorists were card-carrying ACLU members enraged over “whores” like Lindsay Graham. Or maybe they are sick bastards brain-drenched in hate, anti-Semitism, and perverted religion who see the west as decadent enablers of the “Zionist entity.” I can’t remember which. Thank God FITS is on the scene, dropping truth bombs and nudie pics of celebrities. God Bless America!

Reply
Cicero April 21, 2013 at 2:22 pm

Yes, Islamist extremists bomb us because we don’t follow due process. When you read MEMRI or Al Qaeda websites, they rail against unreasonable searches and seizures and lack of access to legal counsel. The 9/11 terrorists were card-carrying ACLU members enraged over “whores” like Lindsay Graham. Or maybe they are sick bastards brain-drenched in hate, anti-Semitism, and perverted religion who see the west as decadent enablers of the “Zionist entity.” I can’t remember which. Thank God FITS is on the scene, dropping truth bombs and nudie pics of celebrities. God Bless America!

Reply
Extreme Moderate April 21, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Nobody grasps the issue, and Graham/McCain do. By not Mirandizing the suspect, anything he says MAY be excluded from evidence in his trial. He is already dead meat from everything else they have against him in his trial. It will be fast-tracked like McVey. In the mean time, anything he says can be used for intelligence against others. It does not exclude use against them. Therefore, get it while you can, to include under anesthesia. We don’t need his statements to use against him. No constitutionalviolation.

Reply
1stpalmetto April 21, 2013 at 9:58 pm

Another dumbass

Reply
Extreme Moderate April 21, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Nobody grasps the issue, and Graham/McCain do. By not Mirandizing the suspect, anything he says MAY be excluded from evidence in his trial. He is already dead meat from everything else they have against him in his trial. It will be fast-tracked like McVey. In the mean time, anything he says can be used for intelligence against others. It does not exclude use against them. Therefore, get it while you can, to include under anesthesia. We don’t need his statements to use against him. No constitutionalviolation.

Reply
1stpalmetto April 21, 2013 at 9:58 pm

Another dumbass

Reply
BigT April 21, 2013 at 3:00 pm

The Truth: The “Rights for Jihadist” stance is Nancy Mace’s Position Paper, and signals that Mace will run as a Liberal-Tarian…
This is just FITS making Nancy Mace’s case against Graham..and that’s why it seems so Ignorant and impractical to any sensible person….

Going right could beat Graham in a Primary, but running left of him (where Mace actually is, politcally) unless you think the Dems will cross over (Triangulate)….I don’t think is a winnable strategy…

Reply
Magic Eight Ballled April 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm

Right, right…anything new you want add or you just on a loop?

Reply
BigT April 21, 2013 at 3:00 pm

The Truth: The “Rights for Jihadist” stance is Nancy Mace’s Position Paper, and signals that Mace will run as a Liberal-Tarian…
This is just FITS making Nancy Mace’s case against Graham..and that’s why it seems so Ignorant and impractical to any sensible person….

Going right could beat Graham in a Primary, but running left of him (where Mace actually is, politcally) unless you think the Dems will cross over (Triangulate)….I don’t think is a winnable strategy…

Reply
Magic Eight Ballled April 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm

Right, right…anything new you want add or you just on a loop?

Reply
johnq April 21, 2013 at 4:54 pm

They know the revolution is coming and like most fascist despots that see the writing on the wall try to delay the inevitable by imposing onerous and unacceptable laws on the populace.

These lackeys sealed their fate when they allowed Wall Street and the banker class to rob American citizens with impunity.

I guess it never crossed their minds that these very laws may be day be used against them.

Reply
johnq April 21, 2013 at 4:54 pm

They know the revolution is coming and like most fascist despots that see the writing on the wall try to delay the inevitable by imposing onerous and unacceptable laws on the populace.

These lackeys sealed their fate when they allowed Wall Street and the banker class to rob American citizens with impunity.

I guess it never crossed their minds that these very laws may be day be used against them.

Reply
BrigidBernadette April 22, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Outside of retarded Mande, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this site.

Reply
Brigid April 22, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Outside of retarded Mande, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this site.

Reply

Leave a Comment