• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Boston Marathon Terrorists Engaged.

Spekkio said:
Miranda is important because cops figured out how to make people feel like they don't have a choice even when they do. Similarly cops in some areas will tell a person "open your trunk, please" vice asking "may I look in your trunk." The person can say no in bith cases, but in the first he has to defy what comes across as an order.

Cops frequently abstain from reading Miranda and formally arresting a suspect to get confessions. "He was free to leave at any time" is what they'll tell the judge.
Click to expand...
"Frequently" Where did you get that? It isn't as common as you think. When it does happen the court sees though it every time.
 
gotta_fly said:
Did this actually happen, was it a stated policy, or are you just making wild assumptions to prove your point?


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Do you live in a cave? A 20 block area of Watertown (note: not where the guy actually was found) was locked down and searched door-to-door by police in riot gear.

The fact that no one has filed a complaint (yet) doesn't make it right. I find it ironic that the hub of the revolution stands for this 237 years later.
 
I don't generally respond expeditiously to homework assignments on the internet, so you'll have to give me time on that one. The top of my head is plenty good enough for most of those, as they're all widely reported. All of those are or have been government policy in this administration and/or the previous one. The ACLU has rightly attempted to litigate many of them.

Rubber stamp? Of over 20,000 FISA warrants requested since 2001, only FIVE were denied. That's a rubber stamp. Those were for mostly for wiretaps, but I think it's a reasonable bet to believe that no more scrutiny is attendant on covert searches.

Torture? Our country has repeatedly tortured detainees since 2001. That's so widely reported as to be indisputable. Don't play that silly business about how since they use some of those techniques in SERE, they're not torture. The reason they're taught in SERE is BECAUSE they're torture techniques used by our enemies. SERE was consulted in the development of these techniques for use in GWOT. That's publicly available, so don't pull OPSEC on that. Using physical coercion to obtain information is torture.

The scariest part of all of this is that secrecy has been used as an excuse to conceal government malfeasance. There are likely even more abuses that most of us will never know about.

We are supposed to be the good guys. If we ever win this conflict, it would be a travesty against all those who've died fighting if it was all for the sake of protecting an American way of life that we gave away in the course of "saving" it.
 
Oh but don't forget Obama's clandestine use of drones (er, I mean UAVs) to kill terrorist suspects in Yemen (along with civilians in the area) and he pursued using them to kill US citizens on US soil without any judicial process. I am amazed that this has stayed relatively low-key in the news.

But we can just tone down CAS in Afghanistan starting in 2010 when American lives are at risk on the ground because the civilian casualties make the locals angry and might make them terrorists.
 
So would any violence committed in the US warrant revoking citizenship? Does it have to have a certain number of casualties? Do we have to figure out whether his intent was political? Would Ted Kaczinski and Timothy McVeigh have qualified, or would that only apply to immigrants and/or Muslims?
 
Spekkio said:
Do you live in a cave? A 20 block area of Watertown (note: not where the guy actually was found) was locked down and searched door-to-door by police in riot gear.

The fact that no one has filed a complaint (yet) doesn't make it right. I find it ironic that the hub of the revolution stands for this 237 years later.
Click to expand...

So the answer to my question is no, there are no reports of someone saying no being probable cause?

I actually don't live in a cave, I live in Oklahoma. Before joining the military I lived in Massachusetts and in and out of Boston. Not one of my friends or family who were subjected to the lockdown have the least resentment toward the law enforcement. They saw it as their local police trying to keep them safe from an active threat.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
If the police lock down your neighborhood, the police went too far.

If the police don't lock down your neighborhood, and you get shot by one of these assholes, the police didn't do enough.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
Spekkio said:
Oh but don't forget Obama's clandestine use of drones (er, I mean UAVs) to kill terrorist suspects in Yemen (along with civilians in the area) and he pursued using them to kill US citizens on US soil without any judicial process. I am amazed that this has stayed relatively low-key in the news.......
Click to expand...

There is actually no legal distinction of nationality of those in the service of the enemy on the battlefield as far as the law (US and international) is concerned. The sticking point comes to what defining what an 'enemy combatant' actually is and where terrorism fits into the definition of war and warfare. We treated it almost solely as a criminal matter with few exceptions before 9/11 and since then we have treated domestic acts of terrorism as criminal (with one or two exceptions at first) and external/foreign ones both militarily and criminally. Practically our efforts to treat terrorists we have captured militarily has largely failed while those we have treated criminally have suceeded almost without exception.

Personally I think the current administration policy on trying terrorists we have captured in the US federal court system while continuing to militarily engage some terrorists overseas who present a clear threat to this country is the correct one, in addition halting the reprehensible use of torture and the questionable practice of shipping terrorists to a legal and PR black hole that is Gitmo. I think there is now a good balance between military necessity and legal protections that have kept our country relatively, to me personally pretty surprisingly, safe since 9/11.

Addressing the usage of drones to kill terrorist suspects, specifically US citizens, there is no practical way to get at the vast majority of those killed except by using UAVs or other kinetic means and that includes the tiny handful of US citizens killed. When there is no practical way to somehow capture or arrest a person, citizen or not, actively engaged in terrorist activities against our country I think we are right to eliminate that threat. Even if it includes sending an AGM-114 with all our love.
 
phrogdriver said:
So would any violence committed in the US warrant revoking citizenship? Does it have to have a certain number of casualties? Do we have to figure out whether his intent was political? Would Ted Kaczinski and Timothy McVeigh have qualified, or would that only apply to immigrants and/or Muslims?
Click to expand...

"Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." Afroyim v. Rusk

Even if it was possible to revoke his citizenship, which might be conceivable if he swore an allegiance to Al Qaeda but even then that hasn't been tried, it would make no difference for all practical purposes in the eyes of the law. More info here on expatriation and it's application in the US.
 
I think an important detail has been left out of this discussion regarding the 4th amendment...none of the people who were detained/searched/locked down/or scared by riot gear were in a position to be incriminated. As matter of fact, the 4th amendment was exactly what was protecting them the whole time.

If the police think there is a terror suspect in your house and they sit you down in your front yard with your hands on your head to keep you (and them) safe, it's perfectly legal. Until they prove the guy's not there, you are a suspect...everybody is a suspect in a case like that. All the 4th amendment guarantees is that if they find 60 pounds of weed, a kilo of coke, and a meth lab in your kitchen they can't prosecute you for it because that evidence wasn't properly obtained.

No ones rights have been violated...let's get the common sense fairy back over hear and tone down the radical talk.
 
Flash said:
"Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." Afroyim v. Rusk

Even if it was possible to revoke his citizenship, which might be conceivable if he swore an allegiance to Al Qaeda but even then that hasn't been tried, it would make no difference for all practical purposes in the eyes of the law. More info here on expatriation and it's application in the US.
Click to expand...

2 comments:

(a) I'm no attorney, but U.S. citizenship does not protect you if you are acting as an enemy combatant in actions against the United States of America. We executed a US citizen for assisting the Nazi spies who were dropped off on Long Island by a U-Boat during WWII;

(b) All members of AW will be shocked to learn that neither of the Brothers Tsarnaev had a permit for the guns they used to kill an MIT police officer or to fire at other police during their shoot-out later that evening. These misguided boys just plumb forgot to get their licenses, I'm sure, in their rush to praise Allah and do his work here on Earth . . .
 
wlawr005 said:
I think an important detail has been left out of this discussion regarding the 4th amendment...none of the people who were detained/searched/locked down/or scared by riot gear were in a position to be incriminated. As matter of fact, the 4th amendment was exactly what was protecting them the whole time.

If the police think there is a terror suspect in your house and they sit you down in your front yard with your hands on your head to keep you (and them) safe, it's perfectly legal. Until they prove the guy's not there, you are a suspect...everybody is a suspect in a case like that. All the 4th amendment guarantees is that if they find 60 pounds of weed, a kilo of coke, and a meth lab in your kitchen they can't prosecute you for it because that evidence wasn't properly obtained.

No ones rights have been violated...let's get the common sense fairy back over hear and tone down the radical talk.
Click to expand...
The police have no probable cause to believe there is a terror suspect in anyone's house just based on the suspect's last known location. I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend a half hour on my front lawn while police search my house the next time a multiple homicide offender is on the loose. I don't have a meth lab or secret weed stash, either. The 4th amendment isn't about protecting criminals, no matter how many cynical prosecutors and police officers think it is. It is common sense to not allow police to conduct door-to-door property searches to catch a criminal, even if he's a mass murderer.

Also, if police enter your house to look for a person and see illegal contraband on the table, they can arrest you under the plain view doctrine. They probably won't in lieu of pursuing the murderer, but they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top