Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

It is quite ironic that he found his information in Inspire magazine, probably made by fake "Al Qaeda" member Adam Gadahn, born Adam Pearlman (->jew).
 
Jodie said:
The man and his brother blew up the Boston Marathon, there is no question about that. I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done. He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.
Click to expand...

It is amazing reading this after so many gun threads where American rights are defended to the nth degree and are held to be the best in the world.
 
Jodie said:
The man and his brother blew up the Boston Marathon, there is no question about that. I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done. He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.
Click to expand...


Read this, and tell me if you understand what it means.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Keith said:
The fact that we don't do the underlined is part of why he resents us. You would have us stoop to his level because he is complaining about us being too damn tall.

Is this a joke?
Click to expand...


Your comment might be a joke, mine's not. At this point I don't see a reason to waste state or federal dollars on this guy, just put him in a row boat out in the middle of the Pacific, if he survives, it was Allah's will.
 
ronin688 said:
To me, this is an extremely un-American way to think.

Your whole country was founded on the principles of the rule of law. You don't get to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't based on how angry you are at them.

If you don't apply your own rules fairly against everyone regardless of what they've done, then you're betraying the ideals your founding fathers fought and died for.
Click to expand...

The man is guilty by his own admission, just exactly what process is going to make a difference in the outcome for this guy or the victims?
 
angrysoba said:
I'll bet he drove a Hyundai instead of a Ford as well. That kind of hatred of the American way of life is sufficient to have him lose his Constitutional Rights in my legal opinion extracted from my posterior.
Click to expand...

This doesn't really deserve a response, it's not contributing to the conversation and amounts to trolling. I hope you feel better now.
 
L.Y.S. said:
If these are your qualifications for being tried as an enemy combatant, then tens of millions of Americans would qualify to be prosecuted, including counter culture pacifists.

You seriously can't see the danger in mob justice? Must we repeat 1930s Germany again to see the danger in this mindset?



And the constitution guarantees all citizens (which Mr. Tsarnaev is) equal rights and protections under the law. Mr. Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, in appearance before his peers on the jury. Seriously, how can you call your self an American and not support his right to due process?

At any rate, as previously stated, Mr. Tsarnaev will appear before a civil court and tried. He will not be tried as a combatant before a military tribunal. He doesn't even fit the criteria to be an enemy combatant. He is a naturalized citizen, which means that if he is tried as a combatant, you can be tried as an enemy combatant. Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Counter culture pacifists aren't blowing people up last time I checked. The dangerous mindset is the waste of time and energy going through the motions of court proceedings with a confession. It's stupid.

If he says he did it, then he isn't innocent. Once you blow people up because you do not support the lifestyle or culture in the country you reside in, your rights should be rescinded.

If I'm trying to overthrow the government or attack the citizens at large in this country I would hope they would try me as a combatant, it would be what I deserved.
 
L.Y.S. said:
I would like to add, that Jahar, the younger of the two suspects, grew up in America. The guy was like 7 when he came to the United States. He lived here for most of his life. If this sort of hatred can happen to someone who has lived here for most of their life, then it can happen to anyone. Jodie would like for us to believe that returning his hatred, and discriminating against an entire group is the solution to stopping terrorism. One only needs to remember what "stopping terrorism" has meant in the past.

Over the past year we've witnessed "terrorism" from white male suspects. They went and shot up malls, elementary schools, and movie theaters. These men killed, maimed, and destroyed communities. Did we take away their rights to due process and a speedy trial by civil law? If we didn't do it in these situations, when other CITIZENS committed such heinous acts, then I fail to see why we should do it when another CITIZEN commits a heinous act.

There are millions of young men that feel like Jahar, who live in the United States, and who don't have his faith or skin color. Most of them will never act on these urges or proclivities. A few unfortunate souls will. Should we try all these men and lock them up even though they haven't committed a crime? Should we lock up anyone who disagrees? I hope the answer is self explanatory.

What some members of this forum are talking about is dangerous nonsense. It's a disastrous recipe for Roman salutes and chants to an oppressive overlord. Most importantly, it's a dangerous excuse for one group of human beings to eliminate another group of human beings.
Click to expand...

String them all up or tie them to a horse, slap it's butt, and let it charge over the border to Mexico. I don't really care who they are but if they commit mass murder for political reasons they need to get out of the country or be hung. The miscreants can express themselves just fine with out harming the public.
 
Nessie said:
It is amazing reading this after so many gun threads where American rights are defended to the nth degree and are held to be the best in the world.
Click to expand...

I don't think any citizen should own a gun that is specifically designed to kill humans. That should not be a right.
 
I wouldn't use the Constitution to argue this point. It was a document originally designed to protect practices that are condemned today. Luckily for us the authors had enough sense to write it in a liberal sense so that the document could evolve to reflect the needs of our society. What possible benefit can be had from trying this person as a citizen when the confession had political ramifications? He needs to be tried as a combatant, if tried at all.
 
Jodie said:
What possible benefit can be had from trying this person as a citizen when the confession had political ramifications? He needs to be tried as a combatant, if tried at all.
Click to expand...

So that other citizens will never be tried as enemy combatants in this country.
 
Jodie said:
At this point I don't see a reason to waste state or federal dollars on this guy, just put him in a row boat out in the middle of the Pacific, if he survives, it was Allah's will.
Click to expand...

In your ideal vision of society, who is the final arbiter of when we skip a trial? The president? The people who comment on news articles? You?

Jodie said:
The man is guilty by his own admission, just exactly what process is going to make a difference in the outcome for this guy or the victims?
Click to expand...

Jessie Misskelley also confessed.
 
Jodie said:
The man is guilty by his own admission, just exactly what process is going to make a difference in the outcome for this guy or the victims?
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the correct outcome. The Constitution guarantees you the correct process. So to say let's throw out the process because it won't make a difference to the outcome is to get it exactly backwards, from a constitutional standpoint.

I know in a later comment you explained that you don't think the Constitution should be followed in this case (leading me once again to wonder who here "resents our way of life"), but the fact is it will be. There are a lot of areas of constitutional law where reasonable minds can and do differ on the interpretation of a particular phrase. Other areas are more cut and dried, and this is one of them. We can't have a 34-year-old president, we can't have an official national religion, and we can't punish a criminal without affording him due process.
 
I Am The Scum said:
In your ideal vision of society, who is the final arbiter of when we skip a trial? The president? The people who comment on news articles? You?



Jessie Misskelley also confessed.
Click to expand...

That would have to be decided based on what is the most efficient means to an end in this specific situation. I don't feel this way if the person denies culpability, they deserve a trial if the evidence needs to be examined. What do you need to examine here in order to establish guilt that he is has admitted to already?
 
What are the laws for treason? Does this not equate to that? Bombing and killing citizens for some political ideology that you embraced against a country you grew up in and took advantage of? Sounds like treason to me, this guy is an enemy combatant if ever there was one.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Is Jodie just copy-pasting comments from a youtube video about the case?
Click to expand...

What you tube video? At any rate, I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. I think most people would agree with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom