jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (14 posts)

Has the ACLU overstepped their bounds with the Boston Bomber?

  1. pagesvoice profile image84
    pagesvoiceposted 4 years ago

    Has the ACLU overstepped their bounds with the Boston Bomber?

    Are you as outraged as I am that the ACLU is complaining the Boston Bomber wasn't read his Miranda Rights? There is video evidence, a police shootout, grenades thrown, an MIT campus policeman killed and a transit cop in serious condition and we are worried about this kid's rights? Am I missing something, because I think he should be sent to Gitmo?

  2. Josak profile image59
    Josakposted 4 years ago

    Innocent until proven guilty, until then EVERYONE no matter how evil what they are accused of doing is has rights.

    1. profile image0
      Justsilvieposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I have to agree with you! Even if the evidence is overwhelming he still has the right to his day in court and the legal process that goes with it.

  3. d.william profile image61
    d.williamposted 4 years ago

    If it was the ACLU who started all the B.S. on T.V. about not reading him his Miranda rights, then i wholeheartedly agree with you that they did indeed overstep their bounds. 
    Anyone who would commit such an act does not deserve any consideration when the proof of their guilt is as overwhelming as in this case.
    For what they did the death penalty is in order, by law.  But, i do not believe in the death penalty, in that, it is too easy a way out for criminals who do things like this.  They should be kept in isolation so they can ponder what they did and realize their isolation from society is for the rest of their lives.  That is greater punishment than the death penalty.
    When the Miranda rights thing is essential is when the prosecutors "create" scenarios that fit the circumstantial evidence in order to convict someone without any legitimate proof.

    1. pagesvoice profile image84
      pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think you summed this up quite nicely.

  4. duffsmom profile image60
    duffsmomposted 4 years ago

    I know this is an open and shut case, but we can't pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't.  I do believe he is an enemy combatant and should be tried as such and not in civilian court.  But I doubt that will happen.

    Yes, I am outraged that this happened and that any human being could have such a lack of compassion that they can indiscriminately kill--but I don't feel we can pick and choose who receives rights based on our emotions.  He'll get his, the evidence is overwhelming.

    Did the ACLU overstep their bounds?  They have bounds?

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely correct, when emotion overrides the law then the legal system becomes useless.

  5. peeples profile image94
    peeplesposted 4 years ago

    These men had been in this country the majority of their lives. They were/are USA citizens. Therefore they are entitled to the same right as everyone else here no matter if it's a bomber, serial killer, rapist, or any other criminal.

  6. junkseller profile image84
    junksellerposted 4 years ago

    We don't follow the rule of law and offer protections such as due process and Miranda rights only for the sake of the accused. We do it for ourselves. Maintaining a robust system is important to prevent things like emotions and bias from tainting justice. It is for cases such as this one that we most need to stand up for the system.

    As far as I am personally concerned, these rights, such as due process and Miranda rights, should be extended to all human beings on the planet, without exception.

  7. Marisaupa profile image59
    Marisaupaposted 4 years ago

    In this particular case the person in question was not read his Miranda rights not due to careless omission, but rather as a planned implementation of a little known provision known as the "public safety exception" which allows for law enforcement to question a suspect without a lawyer present and still be able to use information obtained from such interrogations as admissible evidence in a court of law.

    The FBI's interpretation is as follows: 

    "According to the Supreme Court, the public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger. Because the standard is objective, the availability of the exception does not depend on subjective motivation of the officers. Legitimate concerns for officer safety or public safety prompting unwarned custodial questioning arise in a variety of contexts."

    Now, as you are aware I espouse conservative views.  There is nobody more willing to go out and punish the bad guys than me.  This situation, however, does worry me.  The same way that the Patriot Act worried me right after 9/11. 

    It is not out of a personal concern for this individual.  I hope that he literally fries in the electric chair and then continues frying throughout eternity in hell for what he has done, but if we allow government to so easily bend the established law enforcement procedures that we have come to expect as part of the diligence of due process then we are inviting trouble further down the road.

    I may have strong issues with how some piece of garbage like this can become a citizen; I may even have strong opinions on how this exemplifies the need for strict immigration guidelines, but he is a citizen now nonetheless.  Therefore, if he were to so easily be labeled an enemy combatant, just by a wave of the hand of government, then any US citizen could in theory be labeled an enemy combatant and denied all Constitutional protection.  That should worry everyone.

    Who can say that at some point in the future government cannot label a particular domestic group or individual as a potential threat to public safety simply based on a hunch; or even worse, due to opposing or contradictory views with the government at that time. That is my fear in all of this.  Allowing the emotion of the moment to set a precedence for the eventual erosion of liberty.

  8. k12rswow profile image60
    k12rswowposted 4 years ago

    There is a newly formed wing named ACLU WAY, set aside in the lake of fire.  Accommodations are set aside for God hating, satan loving individuals that are bent on creating the very thing "WE" are promised.  Persecution.  Finish the race, and finish well brothers and sisters.

    Love you all,
    See you all in glory!!!

  9. tillsontitan profile image85
    tillsontitanposted 4 years ago

    While everyone deserves to have his rights respected there is the "enemy combatant" or "terrorist" categories that creat a game changer.  What rights did they give to their victims?  AFTER they are questioned about their terrorist acts and the information needed is gained, they can then be read their Miranda Rights.  I don't think they deserve it even then, but it is the law.

    1. pagesvoice profile image84
      pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That was basically my point, but you stated it so much better than I did.

  10. IDONO profile image82
    IDONOposted 4 years ago

    Using sense, rather than emotion, I think that anyone, citizen or not, that has to follow the laws of our land, should also have the protection that our laws provide. One of the most annoying things I keep hearing is the term " The court of public opinion". This opinion is based on very little knowledge, facts and knowing what the whole game plan is. No court in the land would listen to this opinion.
         As far as the ACLU goes, they are a bunch of radical nuts that have no problem spending taxpayer money to defend absurd claims they make, only for the purpose of bolstering their own reputation and intimidating law officials and enforcement. Sometimes I think they are nothing more than a temp employment agency for scheister attorneys. If they had to start footing the bill for these claims, they wouldn't last until tomorrow.