• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lindsay Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally I'm against it. I think we tread a dangerous path when we start declaring some crimes to be above the normal legal procedures.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lyndsey Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

I think it's an horrible and cruel idea.
 
Lindsay Graham is worried about his re-election. Many Republicans in South Carolina are angry at him for his willingness to actually work with Democrats on occasion.

If I'm not mistaken, the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen. While I know some have argued that U.S. citizens should be eligible for Gitmo, I don't think anyone has actually taken that step. (Digression, IMO, Gitmo is an embarrassing reminder of how far we've sunk as a country -- incarcerating people for life because of ideology rather than for crimes they've been convicted of committing). It would be a sad day for the country if we decided to go down that road.

Graham is just pandering to the loons in his red neck of the woods.
 
I don't think he needs to go to gitmo... though if I were him... that's where I would probably want to go... It's going to be hard for him to make friends in a US jail... probably have to be held in solitary for the rest of his life.... at least in gitmo he can make a few friends.
 
Lindsay Graham, like his good friend John McCain, is a leading proponent of the permanent state of war. Part of that is his desire to militarize our criminal justice system.
 
Travis said:
MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lyndsey Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally I'm against it. I think we tread a dangerous path when we start declaring some crimes to be above the normal legal procedures.
Click to expand...

Just one more piece of evidence that we need to do a thorough cleaning out of Congress - and a lot of other political offices. These people have forgotten - if they ever knew - the purpose of governing.
 
Why not summarily execute the guy by putting rats up his inflatated urethra...

what...

you mean we don't just get to use the legal system for making all our sadistic fantasies come true?

Well, I suppose in that case, if aforementioned legal systems don't get considered laughing stocks then I suppose they should follow the procedure used for all crimes up until now.
 
I believe he should be tried, regardless.

I think it is useful to look at the extremes to even see if there is a case for not putting him on trial. What if it became very obvious that he was trained in Yemen and directed by the terrorist chain of command to carry out this mission (super far fetched, I know)? Would it be fair in the US legal system to send him off to a military prison?
 
They didn't need to be trained! I mean, right now anyone who wanted to make a bomb could do it. Does there always have to be a political or religious reason, a shadow organization behind it, and evil venture capitalists of terror? Can't people just do things on their own? See, for example, the Washington DC snipers, Unabomber, etc.
 
Cainkane1 said:
The punk will be tried, convicted and either put to death or end up like Sirhan Sirhan. He'll never be released.
Click to expand...

Yes, he will be released one day, so will Sirhan Sirhan too. Everyone (minus Charlie Manson) will eventually be released. The U.S. prison system can't afford prisoners aged 80+.

Nathan Leopold was sentenced to life plus 99 years for murder, he served 33 years. Andrew Lee was sentenced to a federal life sentence for espionage, he was released after 22 years.
 
He could always accidentally hang himself in his cell, and we will try him in absentia.

;)
 
Stellafane said:
I want him tried in Boston.
Click to expand...
I agree. He's a US citizen so I expect he will be given a fair trial with representation. I expect it to be a circus but, fair none the less. I think finding a jury in Boston might be tough but doable.

On a side note I'm glad they got him alive but was not unhappy that he was in serious condition. I can say I wouldn't mind seeing him in court all screwed-up in a wheel-chair. Seems fitting, if this makes me a bad person, so be it.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Yes, he will be released one day, so will Sirhan Sirhan too. Everyone (minus Charlie Manson) will eventually be released. The U.S. prison system can't afford prisoners aged 80+.

Nathan Leopold was sentenced to life plus 99 years for murder, he served 33 years. Andrew Lee was sentenced to a federal life sentence for espionage, he was released after 22 years.
Click to expand...

Makes one wonder what "life imprisonment" - to say nothing about "life plus 99 years - means, doesn't it? But then, I often wonder what "guaranteed for life" on appliances means. Whose life? Mine or the appliances's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom