Who reads this garbage? How can you not laugh....

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:19 am

How can anyone with any shred of logic or common sense take this garbage seriously?

Seriously?

Seriously? Who can take this garbage seriously?

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American - Salon.com

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:01 pm

Darn you, ya just hada beat me to it!

I was busy reading and checking something worthy to quote, but there was nothing.

Where does one go with this garbage?

Congrats to

Salon as you bury yourself deeper into irrelevance.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:08 pm

It does raise questions.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:12 pm

oscar;1424745 wrote: It does raise questions.

Like what? Give me one I should take seriously.

minks · Post by **minks** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:15 pm

How about:

"lets hope they find the actual bomber, no scapegoats"

"lets hope the bomber has not already killed themselves in an homage to their "god""

I agree what garbage.

minks · Post by **minks** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:16 pm

How about:

"lets hope they find the actual bomber, no scapegoats"

"lets hope the bomber has not already killed themselves in an homage to their "god""

I agree what garbage.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Apparently YOU read this garbage since you're the one that found it. I agree with this though:

"However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes."

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:36 pm

SnoozeAgain;1424749 wrote: Apparently YOU read this garbage since you're the one that found it. I agree with this though:

"However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes."

That's the exact racist garbage I am talking about.

It is garbage and cannot be logically justified. Shame snooze...it says a lot about a person.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:39 pm

minks;1424748 wrote: How about:

"lets hope they find the actual bomber, no scapegoats"

"lets hope the bomber has not already killed themselves in an homage to their "god""

I agree what garbage.

To be quite frank I can't find that disclaimer buried underneath the rabid racist/cultural and other wild claims.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:48 pm

I think too much Is being read Into the article.

A loner Is likely to have given It his best shot and there will be no further casualties. It Is In effect the more favourable outcome than a cell or network representing a terrorist faction which could Indicate there Is more of the same to come.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:06 pm

How many whites were targeted when McVey did his number as opposed to how many Muslims were targeted because of the 9/11 attacks? It's a good question.

It's typical for right-winged american whites to scream racism as soon as they read the words "white americans" in an article.

This line says it all: There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:04 pm

Well, if it turns out to have been a muslim, there will be more profiling at such events.

If it turns out to be another lunatic white kid, there will be a flood of bills to limit access to pressure cookers.

What if the culprit turns out to be some female Hindu who hates marathons?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:55 pm

It's not only official fallout that's concerning.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:59 pm

So, when they took down the second guy, like most people my first reaction was, Good, the caught the guys.

My second one was, Sure is easy for them to get you, once they decide you're a bad guy.

I hope I am not the only one that finds that a little disconcerting.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:27 am

What I find disconcerting is the fact that the boat owner alerted authorities after he saw blood on his boat yet law enforcement practically destroyed his boat with gunfire. Yeah, I get that the guy was considered armed and dangerous but it sounds like they all just opened fire on a suspect that had been wounded and had been bleeding for hours.

Reminds of the hunt for the ex-cop... a couple of Mexican women were delivering newspapers one morning and the cops started blasting at their vehicle. And another truck got the same treatment just down the road.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:41 am

The Sunday shows are saying they're going to question the guy initially without Mirandizing him & still use the information in court. Reading someone their Miranda rights doesn't grant the right to stay silent, it simply informs the suspect of his rights. The cop doesn't say "You hereby have the right to remain silent." The right is always there.

If they think the kid is a bona fide Islamic extremist then charge him with treason.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:52 am

Perhaps they require more time to establish their case in the public eye.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:52 am

Ahso!;1425018 wrote: Perhaps they require more time to establish their case in the public eye.
Do you mean to charge him with treason? I can see that, but it doesn't excuse making an end-run around established law.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:06 am

salon is relegated to the pile of "partisan propaganda" machinery. Uggghhhh.

How about the truth and credibility in journalism for a change. The networks in the US are all garbage with a steady drum beat agenda of control, security, and distraction. Liberty is fleeting.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:14 am

Accountable;1425015 wrote: The Sunday shows are saying they're going to question the guy initially without Mirandizing him & still use the information in court. Reading someone their Miranda rights doesn't grant the right to stay silent, it simply informs the suspect of his rights. The cop doesn't say "You hereby have the right to remain silent." The right is always there.

If they think the kid is a bona fide Islamic extremist then charge him with treason.

If they don't Mirandize him, and use evidence gathered in trial, the court will be obligated to dismiss that evidence.

That's a fact of the court system.

Of course, if they pack him off to GITMO, I reckon it's a moot point.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:18 am

Accountable;1425024 wrote: Do you mean to charge him with treason? I can see that, but it doesn't excuse making an end-run around established law.That's the point. Law has become a convenient tool for the authorities. That in itself is no surprise though because convenience is what almost all authoritative control tools eventually become.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:19 am

LarsMac;1425033 wrote: If they don't Mirandize him, and use evidence gathered in trial, the court will be obligated to dismiss that evidence.

That's a fact of the court system.

Of course, if they pack him off to GITMO, I reckon it's a moot point.I think all they need to do is label him an enemy combatant. That's what appears to be the course this is taking. Doesn't that nullify Miranda?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:23 pm

"Miranda states that police officers must read suspects their rights before they question them. However, in 1984, the Rehnquist Court ruled that there was an exception whenever public safety or the safety of the officers was involved. There is a compelling public interest in preventing terrorism here. And Slate reports that Attorney General Eric Holder has made extensive use of that provision. But the question is, how far do we go in invoking a compelling public interest?"

Daily Kos: Should There Be a Public Safety Exception to Miranda?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:05 pm

Well if you give your government the right to lock people up without a trial you may as well tear up your constitution and use it as toilet paper.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:11 pm

gmc;1425080 wrote: Well if you give your government the right to lock people up without a trial you may as well tear up your constitution and use it as toilet paper.

As far as I can see, didn't the Governor of Massachusetts declare Martial Law on Friday without actually calling it that? What would have happened if citizens did not stay in their homes that day? Would they have been arrested? Was it Martial Law by consent of the populace?

:-3 :-2

I have an eerie feeling about a future I probably won't live to see. Or will I? Things happen real fast these days.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:52 pm

LarsMac;1425033 wrote: If they don't Mirandize him, and use evidence gathered in trial, the court will be obligated to dismiss that evidence.

That's a fact of the court system. That's what I thought, too, until one of the lawyers explained that they plan to deliberately abuse a loophole that allows emergency information (such as asking where the weapon is) on the scene ... except that they're planning on using it in a couple of days when the guy can talk. Stinks to high heaven if you ask me.

Ahso!;1425038 wrote: I think all they need to do is label him an enemy combatant. That's what appears to be the course this is taking. Doesn't that nullify Miranda?
That's my point. Miranda only notifies a suspect of rights that already exist. Those rights aren't nullified. These are American citizens on American soil. We haven't declared war on America, at least not publicly or officially, so these guys fall into the traitor/insurgent category. But, as you said, law is a tool of convenience nowadays, and seemingly is easy to ignore if it becomes cumbersome.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:45 pm

There is one specific circumstance in which it makes sense to hold off on Miranda. It’s exactly what the name of the exception suggests. The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario. And that should trouble anyone who worries about the police railroading suspects, which can end in false confessions. No matter how unsympathetic accused terrorists are, the precedents the government sets for them matter outside the easy context of questioning them. When the law gets bent out of shape for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Miranda Rights: The public safety exception and terrorism cases. - Slate Magazine