Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

Dr. Keith said:
Jodie is really just here to unite all of us in at least one thread. We can all sit back and agree for once and I think it is kinda nice, for a change.

OT/ good to see you back
Click to expand...

Well, we are all pretty much in agreement on this. It's an absurd position to hold.

OT- Thanks. I'll try to be nicer to some of the thin skinned here....I get punished if their feelings are hurt..... /OT
 
SezMe said:
Could you give an example of a gun "specifically designed" to kill humans? In general, how would differentiate between such a gun and a gun designed simply to kill whatever it is aim at?
Click to expand...


Any military, machine, hand, autocannon, artillery, or tank.
 
linusrichard said:
Funny you should ask. Treason against the United States is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Would you be willing to accept the Constitution as authority for this question?





Perhaps it's debatable, but to me it sounds like, no, this is not treason.



Are you working from the constitutional definition, or your own sense?



No. I mean, maybe he's an enemy combatant (I say no), but he's certainly not "an enemy combatant if ever there was one." Here are some things you would normally expect to find in an enemy combatant:
- A foreigner.
- Bearing arms in the service of his country.
- A state of war exists between his country and the United States.
- Wearing the uniform of his country's military.
- Attacking US military targets.
- Fighting in the theater of war.

I'm not saying that an enemy combatant has to have all these characteristics, but to take someone like Tsarnaev, who has none of these characteristics, and say he's "an enemy combatant if ever there was one" can't be right.

Also -- if you think he's guilty of treason, you should be aware that the Constitution puts special procedural rules on treason trials:


The Constitution could have just said "confession" if the founders thought a confession to police was enough, but instead they said "Confession in open Court," which I think has to mean something, right?
Click to expand...

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. I was working from the constitutional definition. Where do terrorists fall within this definition?
 
Nessie said:
A trial does not just establish guilt. It decides on the sentence, establishes sanity and it shows the USA abides by the rule of law. A guilty plea probably means a much smaller trial, but some for of trial is still required.
Click to expand...
I get that but it should be limited to sentencing in this case, no need to drag this out for days on end wasting money and time.
 
angrysoba said:
You say that my post doesn't deserve a response and that I must be trolling, yet look at what you said:



So what parts of "our way of life" do you endorse? Not the US Constitution, obviously.











According to whom is it a big difference? You?
Click to expand...


It should to everyone. Why go through the motions with this guy if he confessed, now I'm hearing that his mother raised him that way and that she is also involved. I say put them all in a row boat to China to see if they can make it, it might turn into a real life version of The Life of Pi.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You're confusing some very different things.

Treason is a crime. If you're accused of a crime, you get the rights of the accused.

Being an enemy combatant is not a crime. If you're captured as an enemy combatant, you're subject to the rules of the Third Geneva Convention on the handling and treatment of prisoners of war.

Being an illegal enemy combatant is a confusing term that describes someone accused of a crime. Again, if someone is accused of a crime, they're entitled to all the rights of the accused.
Click to expand...


If they confess, then they have moved beyond just being accused. If the motivation was for political reasons then as a citizen, he committed treason. He is automatically an enemy combatant if he helped set and detonate the bombs.
 
triforcharity said:
So, you don't like the 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments. Do you support the rights of all to be free? Hummmm..........
Click to expand...

If the constitution is not a static entity and designed to evolve to meet the needs of our present day society then it needs to be changed to better address these kind of enemies that we are now dealing with.
 
triforcharity said:
Well, we are all pretty much in agreement on this. It's an absurd position to hold.

OT- Thanks. I'll try to be nicer to some of the thin skinned here....I get punished if their feelings are hurt..... /OT
Click to expand...

No, it's a very rational position to take. You hold the ideal, and I consider the reality of the situation.
 
Jodie said:
No, it's a very rational position to take. You hold the ideal, and I consider the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You're clearly advocating the anti-ideal, not reality. The reality is that prosecuting a terrorist (or any other murderer) by following the laws of our land is both possible and preferable. It comes with far fewer potential negative consequences than throwing out the law when someone has been a big meanie and made us feel angry and/or scared.
 
G6000 said:
Every American citizen is protected by their Constitutional rights when they are accused of murder.

Unless they are a Muslim. It's right there in the First Amendment. Look for yourself. Don't ask me to go and get the evidence for my claim.
Click to expand...

To me his religion is irrelevant. The issue for me is that if you do not like where you are living, have some kind of moral or religious issue with the citizens in that area, the logical thing to do would be to move.

Nope, he decided to blow us up to make some kind of moot point. Since he didn't support our way of life and rejected our rights to enjoy this life, he should not enjoy any benefits that our society could or would provide for him.
 
Babbylonian said:
Wrong. You're clearly advocating the anti-ideal, not reality. The reality is that prosecuting a terrorist (or any other murderer) by following the laws of our land is both possible and preferable. It comes with far fewer potential negative consequences than throwing out the law when someone has been a big meanie and made us feel angry and/or scared.
Click to expand...


Well I don't see why we should go through the motions of a trial if he confessed, what is the point? Make a standard punishment for terrorist acts, if you get a confession, then follow through with that standard punishment and be done with it.
 
Jodie said:
If the constitution is not a static entity and designed to evolve to meet the needs of our present day society then it needs to be changed to better address these kind of enemies that we are now dealing with.
Click to expand...

Jodie said:
No, it's a very rational position to take. You hold the ideal, and I consider the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

Jodie said:
No, but I'ld like for it to stay that way.
Click to expand...

Jodie said:
To me his religion is irrelevant...could or would provide for him.
Click to expand...

Jodie said:
Well I don't see why we should go through the motions of a trial if he confessed...be done with it.
Click to expand...

What's the matter Jodie. Nothing good on TV? :D
 
Jodie said:
I get that but it should be limited to sentencing in this case, no need to drag this out for days on end wasting money and time.
Click to expand...

No, there most certainly IS a need. We, as a country, NEED to put him on trial, we NEED to convict him, and we NEED to sentence him appropriately. We NEED to abide by the US Constitution, which doesn't ASK us to give him his due process, it REQUIRES it, or we've failed as a nation, and would be no better than places like Somalia or Libya. Sorry, we're better than that.

Jodie said:
We do, and I bet if you put it to the vote my POV would win out.
Click to expand...

I'd bet you'd lose that bet. Not that it matters, because our justice system isn't based on the court of public opinion, but on the law. Sorry, your POV is perverted at best.
 
Jodie said:
If the constitution is not a static entity and designed to evolve to meet the needs of our present day society then it needs to be changed to better address these kind of enemies that we are now dealing with.
Click to expand...

So, no due process, no courts, just the court of public opinion. Wow. I'm glad that our country doesn't, and will never, work that way.

Just out of curiosity, do you also vote???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom