Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

newyorkguy said:
The problem? Who decides whether the confession is valid? Therein lies the rub, as they used to say.

(Btw, Jeanine Pirro was the District Attorney in the county where I live. There's been some innocent people who have been let out of prison, people who were convicted back when Mrs. Pirro was still prosecutor. I'm sure at the time she believed they were guilty...only she had a lot of irons in the fire. Might've clouded her judgement a bit. She's been accused of 'believing what she needed to believe.')
Click to expand...


Now who knows what the particulars were for each case in those situations? My point here is that we have a confession, multiple witnesses, and concrete evidence. Why do you need a trial in this situation? Just because everyone gets one? Isn't that like saying " We bleach everything even though this piece of clothing doesn't need it."
 
Babbylonian said:
The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense? Not very well played at all I'm afraid, given that I haven't called for your exile or imprisonment without trial...
Click to expand...


Well I'm sure your opinion carries just as much weight as mine.
 
Border Reiver said:
Where is the law that allows you to strip someone's citizenship?
Click to expand...

LOLOL....it's not my law, it's my opinion that those that are citizens that abuse their rights, or deny other's their rights, should then forfeit those said rights.
 
Jodie said:
Exactly, send him back to Russia because of the so called threat of persecution and let him take his chances.
Click to expand...
You appear to have just conceded that he's not from Russia, except in some woolly "geography, meh" sense, and then suggested that he be sent back, to Russia. He is not Russian.
 
Aulus Agerius said:
So... your logic is "The system is unfair in some cases therefore let's make it unfair in this one too."

Violating Tsarnaev's rights won't make the system better for anyone else, so why do you think referring to the general inconsistency of the US justice system as a justification for your rather extreme views?
Click to expand...

I brought it up as a counter argument for those defending this person's rights. Why so adamant about this one's rights as opposed to those citizens who are not given due process or equal representation to the point that it is no longer a just system? If folks are going to get on a high horse, make it a Lippizan Stallion, not a mule in horse harness.
 
ZirconBlue said:
No. Kyrgyzstan was never part of "Russia". And it was not even part of the USSR during Tsarnaev's lifetime. The Commonwealth of Independent States is a loose association of independent nations. I'm sorry, but if you want to deport him to his country of birth, you will have to send him to Kyrgyzstan, not Russia.

Not that I think it makes any sense whatsoever to deport a US Citizen who has been in the US since he was a young child.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

In the late nineteenth century, the majority part of what is today Kyrgyzstan was ceded to Russia through two treaties between China (then Qing Dynasty) and Russia. The territory, then known in Russian as "Kirgizia", was formally incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1876. The Russian takeover was met with numerous revolts against Tsarist authority, and many of the Kyrgyz opted to move to the Pamir Mountains and Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan
 
Jodie said:
The beautiful thing about the constitution is that it is a working document, it can always be amended.
Click to expand...
To some extent, I agree. The constitution we have over here is quite different to yours, and I really appreciate the difference. The problem I have is that people who make the claim you're making here seem to me to be often the first to decry something on the grounds that it's unconstitutional. The written-in-stone (except when amended) constitution seems to be something that can be brandished or ignored alternately by the same person.
 
Jodie said:
Wrong.

In the late nineteenth century, the majority part of what is today Kyrgyzstan was ceded to Russia through two treaties between China (then Qing Dynasty) and Russia. The territory, then known in Russian as "Kirgizia", was formally incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1876. The Russian takeover was met with numerous revolts against Tsarist authority, and many of the Kyrgyz opted to move to the Pamir Mountains and Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan
Click to expand...
Nice bit of quick Wikipediaing. That doesn't alter the fact that he isn't from Russia. You cannot send him to Russia. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that he be sent back to Russia. The fact that you haven't yet extricated yourself from the Russia=USSR=Cold War mindset doesn't change this. Kyrgyzstan (aside from being Sporcle gold) is not a part of Russia, and wasn't when he was born. He is not Russian, never was (to the best of my knowledge) Russian, and you cannot send him to Russia.
 
Jodie said:
LOLOL....it's not my law, it's my opinion that those that are citizens that abuse their rights, or deny other's their rights, should then forfeit those said rights.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying that this scum should lose his rights because he denied another citizen their right. Wait wait wait....No, seriously, the delicious irony will be explained, just want to make sure we're on the same page.....Ok?

You're attempting to deny this scumbag HIS right to a fair trial, to confront his accusers, and be judged by a jury of his peers. So, which right are you forfeiting? You're doing the EXACT same thing. Attempting to deny someone else, their rights as GUARANTEED by the constitution. Gotcha.

Jodie said:
The beautiful thing about the constitution is that it is a working document, it can always be amended.
Click to expand...

While this is true, you're not advocating that. You're saying that he is guilty, before he is proven to be innocent in a court of law.
 
Rat said:
To some extent, I agree. The constitution we have over here is quite different to yours, and I really appreciate the difference. The problem I have is that people who make the claim you're making here seem to me to be often the first to decry something on the grounds that it's unconstitutional. The written-in-stone (except when amended) constitution seems to be something that can be brandished or ignored alternately by the same person.
Click to expand...


It's never all or nothing, not even the judiciary system can agree on the interpretation of constitutional law. All I'm saying is be practical in the matter when the defendant, as in this case, is so obviously guilty.
 
Rat said:
Nice bit of quick Wikipediaing. That doesn't alter the fact that he isn't from Russia. You cannot send him to Russia. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that he be sent back to Russia. The fact that you haven't yet extricated yourself from the Russia=USSR=Cold War mindset doesn't change this. Kyrgyzstan (aside from being Sporcle gold) is not a part of Russia, and wasn't when he was born. He is not Russian, never was (to the best of my knowledge) Russian, and you cannot send him to Russia.
Click to expand...

I don't know why not, give him a passport and a plane ticket. It seems easy enough to me.
 
triforcharity said:
Wait, you're saying that this scum should lose his rights because he denied another citizen their right. Wait wait wait....No, seriously, the delicious irony will be explained, just want to make sure we're on the same page.....Ok?

You're attempting to deny this scumbag HIS right to a fair trial, to confront his accusers, and be judged by a jury of his peers. So, which right are you forfeiting? You're doing the EXACT same thing. Attempting to deny someone else, their rights as GUARANTEED by the constitution. Gotcha.



While this is true, you're not advocating that. You're saying that he is guilty, before he is proven to be innocent in a court of law.
Click to expand...

He took away his victim's rights, why should he deserve any? I'm saying he is guilty , just as he says he is guilty, just as the evidence and witnesses point to his guilt.
 
Jodie said:
He took away his victim's rights, why should he deserve any?
Click to expand...

Because our constitution requires it. No if's, and's or but's about it. There are no two ways about it. You're wrong.

Jodie said:
I'm saying he is guilty , just as he says he is guilty, just as the evidence and witnesses point to his guilt.
Click to expand...
And when a court deem him guilty, then he will be. Until then, you're not the arbitrator of guilt. Not now, not ever. Our courts are the final decision. Not John Q. Citizen.
 
Jodie said:
Now who knows what the particulars were for each case in those situations?
Click to expand...

Uh, a *********** court?

My point here is that we have a confession, multiple witnesses, and concrete evidence. Why do you need a trial in this situation? Just because everyone gets one? Isn't that like saying " We bleach everything even though this piece of clothing doesn't need it."
Click to expand...

Are you just an utterly stupid person? Or want to be badass and immediately assassinate everyone you see as guilty? Do you have any, any at all, respect for the American Constitution?

"your point here" is that you just want to kill anyone you think is overwhelmlingly guilty, without trial. Good job, Robespierre.
 
Jodie said:
The beautiful thing about the constitution is that it is a working document, it can always be amended.
Click to expand...
Thumbs up, you've managed to post something that's factual.

However there's a step two required before you realize profit: Repeal the sixth amendment. Good luck with that.
 
Jodie said:
Wrong.

In the late nineteenth century, the majority part of what is today Kyrgyzstan was ceded to Russia through two treaties between China (then Qing Dynasty) and Russia. The territory, then known in Russian as "Kirgizia", was formally incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1876. The Russian takeover was met with numerous revolts against Tsarist authority, and many of the Kyrgyz opted to move to the Pamir Mountains and Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan
Click to expand...

Rat said:
Nice bit of quick Wikipediaing. That doesn't alter the fact that he isn't from Russia. You cannot send him to Russia. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that he be sent back to Russia. The fact that you haven't yet extricated yourself from the Russia=USSR=Cold War mindset doesn't change this. Kyrgyzstan (aside from being Sporcle gold) is not a part of Russia, and wasn't when he was born. He is not Russian, never was (to the best of my knowledge) Russian, and you cannot send him to Russia.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I guess by Jodie's logic, it's still OK to consider the US part of Britain.
 
triforcharity said:
Because our constitution requires it. No if's, and's or but's about it. There are no two ways about it. You're wrong.


And when a court deem him guilty, then he will be. Until then, you're not the arbitrator of guilt. Not now, not ever. Our courts are the final decision. Not John Q. Citizen.
Click to expand...

You are the one that seems to be putting me on a pedestal, I thought I was only voicing an opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom