Boston Marathon Bombing

[guido911]

I know this is a very fluid situation, but I think it prompts an interesting discussion. We know there were two explosions, and the news is reporting that two other explosive devices have been located. IF there was a suspect in custody, do you used enhanced interrogation techniques in order to find additional bombs or to get information about accomplices? 

[Hoss]

I know this is a very fluid situation, but I think it prompts an interesting discussion. We know there were two explosions, and the news is reporting that two other explosive devices have been located. IF there was a suspect in custody, do you used enhanced interrogation techniques in order to find additional bombs or to get information about accomplices? 

Boston official I'm watching on CNN is saying that there was a third incident, but I didn't hear any details.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I know this is a very fluid situation, but I think it prompts an interesting discussion. We know there were two explosions, and the news is reporting that two other explosive devices have been located. IF there was a suspect in custody, do you used enhanced interrogation techniques in order to find additional bombs or to get information about accomplices? 

Are we a country operating by "rule of law"...??

[heironymouspasparagus]

But you know for a fact, that if we didn't have all those assault weapons laying around, we wouldn't have had this happen....

[Gaspar]

They have a suspect.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/authorities_under_suspect_guard_y2m8cJO29uC2PDGIjYBalO

[guido911]

Are we a country operating by "rule of law"...??

No. For purposes of my post, we are a fascist/communist dictatorship (you chooses) that doesn't follow the rule of law, nor have we ever. We also do not have a constitution, body of law protecting rights of the accused, and whatever other nonsense your post posits we don't have. We also randomly arrest would-be suspects and allow them to continue committing crimes already in progress, or allow them to facilitate other persons they know of or in conspiracy with. There, with those parameters, feel free to respond.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No. For purposes of my post, we are a fascist/communist dictatorship (you chooses) that doesn't follow the rule of law, nor have we ever. We also do not have a constitution, body of law protecting rights of the accused, and whatever other nonsense your post posits we don't have. We also randomly arrest would-be suspects and allow them to continue committing crimes already in progress, or allow them to facilitate other persons they know of or in conspiracy with. There, with those parameters, feel free to respond.

I wasn't positing anything at all...seems like I remember someone else raising the question encompassing all those things just a little bit earlier in the thread...
....something about enhanced interrogation techniques....to get information.  And all that implies from the above list.

If any commentary was implied at all, it was to pose the question to ask ourselves - do we want to keep all those protections we have - I vote yes.  We do.  (At least most of us do....)

[guido911]

I wasn't positing anything at all...seems like I remember someone else raising the question encompassing all those things just a little bit earlier in the thread...
....something about enhanced interrogation techniques....to get information.  And all that implies from the above list.

If any commentary was implied at all, it was to pose the question to ask ourselves - do we want to keep all those protections we have - I vote yes.  We do.  (At least most of us do....)

I heard Obama called it an act of terrorism. So, is it an act of war then? Does it matter if acts of terrorism=acts of war?

Here's my take, as it has ever been. An act of terrorism is not a criminal offense in the traditional sense. It's purposes are political and designed to scare people into submission or change. It rises to insurrection, sedition, and treason and should be investigated and prosecuted under whatever rules of war this country sees fit to establish (but still remaining reasonably compliant with applicable treaties).

Bring on water boarding, loud music, sleep deprivation, stopping short of the full "Lynddie England-ing" to stop another attack. 

[Vashta Nerada]

The FBI is so busy saving the world from terrorist plots they themselves create, that they have no resources to deal with the ones they dont create.

[Vashta Nerada]

do you used enhanced interrogation techniques in order to find additional bombs or to get information about accomplices? 

Only to make you feel good;  otherwise, it doesnt produce reliable information.

[guido911]

Only to make you feel good;  otherwise, it doesnt produce reliable information.

That's a matter of opinion, one that I do not share.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I heard Obama called it an act of terrorism. So, is it an act of war then? Does it matter if acts of terrorism=acts of war?

Here's my take, as it has ever been. An act of terrorism is not a criminal offense in the traditional sense. It's purposes are political and designed to scare people into submission or change. It rises to insurrection, sedition, and treason and should be investigated and prosecuted under whatever rules of war this country sees fit to establish (but still remaining reasonably compliant with applicable treaties).

Bring on water boarding, loud music, sleep deprivation, stopping short of the full "Lynddie England-ing" to stop another attack. 

Are you sure you are a lawyer?  You talk about prosecuting terrorism using the rules of war the country sees fit to establish - and adherence to treaties...  which we already have done.  Repeatedly over the last couple hundred years.  And the latest of which are actually still in effect.

And then you go off into the weeds advocating the use of what would constitute war crimes.  Much like we have been doing since 2002.

Can you clarify?  ....in a rational fashion...??


All that aside, my first inclination is to start flailing about in much the same way as you advocate.  Good thing I am not an officer of the law, or the court.  But if we go with the sentiment of that last sentence - the ends justify the means - then the rhetorical question I posed initially suddenly because less rhetorical and more reality based.

[davideinstein]

Stick with the law. It's worked for centuries.

[guido911]

Are you sure you are a lawyer?  You talk about prosecuting terrorism using the rules of war the country sees fit to establish - and adherence to treaties...  which we already have done.  Repeatedly over the last couple hundred years.  And the latest of which are actually still in effect.

And then you go off into the weeds advocating the use of what would constitute war crimes.  Much like we have been doing since 2002.

Can you clarify?  ....in a rational fashion...??


All that aside, my first inclination is to start flailing about in much the same way as you advocate.  Good thing I am not an officer of the law, or the court.  But if we go with the sentiment of that last sentence - the ends justify the means - then the rhetorical question I posed initially suddenly because less rhetorical and more reality based.

You can look into the eyes of fatherless children, or parents crying over a murdered baby, because you didn't do all you could to stop another terrorist attack, and can you tell them, "the ends didn't justify the means".  I can't. When people declare war on this country, you are an enemy of the constitution. You don't get the same rights you and I get. I do not want to get search warrants, read them their rights, pay for their attorney, or tie up 12 persons to sit in judgment of them. You get a ticket to Gitmo, right after you tell us everything you know--whether you want to or are "encouraged"...

As for me being a lawyer? So what? I am a father, son, former soldier, and citizen too. And I am not alone here. I have often linked to this article penned by notorious right wing nutjob Alan Dershowitz...http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/torturewarrants.html

[Conan71]

The FBI is so busy saving the world from terrorist plots they themselves create, that they have no resources to deal with the ones they dont create.