It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ACLU: Denying Miranda rights to marathon bombing suspect is 'un-American'

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


It is not relevant to current atrocities. I do not "feel" about this as emotions should not be present when viewing such monstrous acts. Get current man.




posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elderlight
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


Every post in here is based solely on personal opinion no matter how many supporting laws and rules you supply.
I express what I want to just as you do and will continue to do so in the future.


Someone else's opinion:

Another reason I love Allen West. He’s not afraid of the PC crowd. No, he tells them to get out of the way of the truth:


Let me be very clear, the terrorist attack in Boston and evolving events indicate we have a domestic radical Islamic terror problem in America. We must no longer allow the disciples of political correctness and the acolytes of the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS) to preach to us some misconceived definition of tolerance and subservience. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. Carlos Bledsoe in Little Rock, MAJ Hasan in Ft Hood, the Ft Dix Six, Faisal Shahazad in NYC Times Square — these are just the examples I can type now. When Rep Peter King attempted to have hearings on domestic terrorism he was attacked for being racist. No more excuses. No more apologies. We are in a war of ideological wills, and we shall prevail. Congratulations to all the law enforcement agencies.

edit on 22-4-2013 by Elderlight because: addition


Great post


I see that you don't post that often, you really should post more!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Elderlight
 


Hahahahaha hahahahahah have you read your posts? You're really trying to claim that they're made without emotion and feelings clouding your vision?

If you're willing to throw away the rule of law in the wake of an attack like this then you're going to face more attacks not less, you're basically giving their actions far more weight than they would have had you just convicted them under the rule of law.

I'd like to say thankfully your brand of justice isn't what the US uses.... but it seems as though it is these days.
edit on 22-4-2013 by MaxSteiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I agree, a government cannot claim to be a beacon of rights and freedoms while taking away the rights of some as and when they see fit. Every person - NO MATTER WHAT THE CRIME - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

America is about to slide further down the international scale for Human Rights because of this.

These basic rights are supposed to be available to all, and the fact that this has been ignored in his case should be a major warning to all Americans. You should all be angry about this.
edit on 22-4-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Maybe you should make sure these guys rights to murder you are protected too, for sooner or later, these Americans are going to willingly agree to destroy/terrorize other Americans.

EXCERPT:
Islamberg, located in rural upstate New York, is a 70 acre underground-bunkered paramilitary Islamic compound. Here within the compound lives a Muslim only community. The majority of these are black american born males, hardened criminals who converted to radical Islam whilst serving time in state prison. It is also the headquarters of Muslims of the Americas, the International Quranic Open University and the United Muslim Christian Forum. Islamberg is the best known among 35 such compounds, ranging in size from 25 to 300 acres, that already dot 22 states across America. Evidence suggests these Islamic compounds and the convicted criminals who live their are participating in jihad training and using crime to raise funds


itmakessenseblog.com...



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
That was quick. Terrorist sympathizers are already out in force.


So anyone who believes in upholding something that our legal system is actually BUILT ON is a "terrorist sympathizer"?


I would say that your post was to ridiculous I would assume you were trolling, but having seen some of the complete stupidity expressed by a lot of "theorists" on here lately I fear that you're actually serious



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Elderlight
 


Oh yeah you're totally looking at this in an impartial way free from emotion and feeling aren't you?


I'd like to ask how you posting that is any different to what you were complaining about a few posts ago...



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Agreed, protected rights are for everyone, whether it's pleasant or not.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide a framework, within which, the people of this nation and their government are required to work. The basic rules of our society were put there for a reason. Not to be removed or replaced, but to force us all to find other ways of behaving than societies of the past.

If a Constitutional law is "in the way" or inconvenient, it is DOING IT'S JOB.

The intent is that the interaction between citizen and state will adapt to those laws, not the other way around.

We are lost in this regard and currently our system of governance and citizenship is some sort of perverted mutation of it's intended form.

The Americans that cheer for the destruction of rights when an undesirable person is denied his or hers would be the first to cry foul if they were accused or convicted of some transgression without recognition of their own rights.

Typical American thinking doesn't even reach that contemplation at this point.

As a society our minds are becoming more childish by the day. It's not even stupidity, it's more along the lines of a deep seeded ignorance and thoughtlessness. Flimsy views of issues based on rash, overly emotional responses.

The problem is rife throughout all levels of our society too. What once was common thought and behavior is seen as fringe now. You are a lefty socialist or a right wing fanatic (depending on which side is the enemy of the viewer) if you suggest that we are not on a good road as a nation.

It's fringe to suggest that the producers deserve a bigger cut of the pie, it's fringe to suggest that politicians should be held accountable for their policies and it's fringe to discuss citizens rights.... bad stuff in the land of the free.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Fiberx
 





protected rights are for everyone, whether it's pleasant or not.


I'll ask again, nobody has replied to this question yet.

Please name which of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's rights have been violated?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Man I saw your profile pic and thought, there's a chilled out dude, but then you say you're on the same page as Truthseeker? Noway the dude would abide that


You are right though, seems to be legal what they're doing - unless he's doped out of his head on morphine and isn't really aware of where he is, might be some grounds there having looked at the Miranda vs Arizona case.
edit on 22-4-2013 by MaxSteiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Fiberx
 





protected rights are for everyone, whether it's pleasant or not.


I'll ask again, nobody has replied to this question yet.

Please name which of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's rights have been violated?


Right now... none - that I'm aware of of course. (specially that "right to remain silent" that was followed too literally maybe).

But, seriously though, where does that question come from? (I might have missed something)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


Gave you a star.


I am pretty chilled out most of the time.

I am 50,years old, And have watched terrorist acts being committed against the U.S and the West since the 70's. I waited and waited to no avail for the moderate Muslim world to step up and police their own radicals.

Well they never did until they decide to step up and police their radicals. I do and will support the war on terrorism. You can only get punched in the face for so long until you decide to fight back.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


Is there a need to attack another person because he shares some of my view?

Is there a need to disparage me as you did in your post, the ONLY way to silence my right to express my views freely without fear and favor, the very CONSTITUTIONAL right from the CONSTITUTION you unashamedly lied to fool others with your terrrorist sympathizing ways, to uphold?

Leave them alone, I alone am fully responsible for what i say and wrote, and take on me instead, bravely if you have it in you, and I will respond accordingly, to the T&C of this site which I am a guest, and in my time should your responses be worth it, and ignored as is my right, if they are frivolous.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Fiberx
 





protected rights are for everyone, whether it's pleasant or not.


I'll ask again, nobody has replied to this question yet.

Please name which of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's rights have been violated?


Right now... none - that I'm aware of of course. (specially that "right to remain silent" that was followed too literally maybe).

But, seriously though, where does that question come from? (I might have missed something)





But, seriously though, where does that question come from? (I might have missed something)


Umm.......In the OP.

2nd
edit on 22-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Haha


Don't get me wrong, I do support the war on Terrorism, but I think it should be done in a manner that doesn't appear to be terrorism from the other side of the fence.

That's why I have a problem with drone and rocket assassination for instance - if the US is willing to blow up a wedding to get one person without regards to collateral damage then why should opposed groups have any compunctions about using similar tactics.

Infact, I'll go one further - a lot of the problems the states has now is because of the way the "war on terror" has been waged. I don't even think it's malicious, it's just carried out in a manner that seems to say the West is above international law.

There's better ways to deal with terrorism than sinking to their level.

And seriously, think about it, 2 men were able to lock down ALL of Boston and tie up all of the security forces in the city and havee large portions of the public calling for the end of the rule of law - all for the price of 2 pressure cookers and some low grade explosives.
Thats how they win.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


No they win by being able to operate with near impunity for 40 years. How do you think they should be stopped ?

If you have a better way let's hear it.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   


What does 'un - American' even mean ???
It is an odd sort of term - can you explain please. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


You asked if his rights were "violated".

In the op it was mentioned "denial of rights". For those rights to be "violated", they have to be given first. There are no violations if no rights are conceded.

But thats ok, now I got you. I just have a different approach to some things - gray areas were tools of the trade for many years, I'm sorry.

Thanks for the clarification though



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Ok first off, I'm responding to his comments because they are worthy of response - why do you assume that everything has to be about you? I admit he does come across as a bit sock puppety at times, but he's able to engage in something approaching debate - in that he has the occasional (unrelated) source and his posts have something to do with other peoples. He certainly seems to be able to give as good as he gets, so I doubt he needs your protection

Second:


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by MaxSteiner
 


Is there a need to disparage me as you did in your post, the ONLY way to silence my right to express my views freely without fear and favor, the very CONSTITUTIONAL right from the CONSTITUTION you unashamedly lied to fool others with your terrrorist sympathizing ways, to uphold?



What does that even mean? Not even being facetious, it's just a confusing paragraph...

I've made no attempt to silence you, I'd merely chosen to ignore you, It's clear you're one of those special people so sure of their opinion that their mind shuts down when presented with differing information en.wikipedia.org...

Being a dialectic materialist at heart I try to take on a little bit of all views, because the truth always lies somewhere between opposed points of view, so I genuinely have no wish to silence you, anyone who feels that strongly must have a point somewhere!

In closing though, I feel I must say, I've actually been in cities while terrorist attacks were threatened and occurring (I keep trying to point out I'm from the UK but I get the impression you think I'm an American still?), so I do find it quite amusing that the arguments you espouse are so extreme, but I think that might just be the way I was brought up.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


The better way is by accepting they carry out these attacks for a reason and addressing those reasons.

Seriously, if the UK carried out rocket assassinations and the like in Ireland there would have been universal condemnation! Hell what we were doing was pretty bloody extreme! But, as history shows, none of that worked,
What ended the troubles is dialogue and compromise.

You can kill as many "terrorists" as you like and demonize the other side as much as you like, but that will never solve the problem, so long as people are angry enough to fight back and feel so powerless that the only weapon they have are atrocities you will have terrorism.

Brute force will never work as a solution, because its the problem in the first place.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join