bombs in Boston ... and now in Texas???

Yes. It's called not being an ignorant bigot. Can you clarify this?

Yes. WE=all sane and ratinal people who seek to do no harm to others and who just want to be able to freely enjoy baseball, marathons and hockey games without being in a war.THEY= individuals who, for whatever reason, seek to involve us(WE) in a war or who simply desire to kill or maim us to inflict terror or harmJar may think that these people may in fact be sane, but my opinion is that anyone who seeks to harm anoher human is not sane.

That made me laugh. A lot.People, by and large, are neither sane nor rational.

Well in the first place we could, it's not like the richest nation in the world is short of a bit of cash or like in order to hunt down the terrorists we actually had to hire more policemen rather than giving new orders to the ones we already had, and in the second place it does seem to be working better than the alternative of giving up. We remain not actually bankrupt, and not actually defeated.

Can you give me some examples of people that are in your "they" category?In Message 120, you say: Can you elaborate how you would like "them" (whoever that may be) to not go against our "culture"? Is our culture and way of life simply not blowing up buildings? You realize we are at war, right? You realize OUR soldiers are killing brown people right now, as we speak, right? Just because you are safe at home doesn't mean the rest of the fucking world doesn't have to deal with this shit every day. In some countries, it is US that is doing the bombing!Gotta love American priviledge! "pshaw, keep your bombs and violence in the desert please, I'm trying to watch sports and eat hamburgers"In Message 115, you say: Who are our "idealogical adversaries" and again, how does that relate to this topic (since there is NO connection to anything yet)?Again in Message 115, What adversary? Who is this boogeyman you are fighting and what does it have to do with Boston?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

nvmEdited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Jar says not quite.Perhaps if you ask jar a dozen more questions or if I continue interrogating him in my own testy style we can find out what he really thinks. Is getting jar 'right' really worth that level of effort?

Mostly.If you have the energy.

I read on CNN that Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were asking for the surviving bomber to be held as an enemy combatant. Reports are that Dzhokar is a naturalized American citizen.I've tried to research the current definition of enemy combatant, and it seems that it can apply to American citizens acting for a foreign interest. Not sure how we get there with a couple of an expat Russian.Any opinions about what the executive branch will do in this regard? Seems like we'll get another test case for our post 9/11 constitution.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Doesn't the Patriot Act already do that? Isn't that how Bradley Manning is still locked up no trial? This dude's justice is as good as gone. If he's smart, he will play them as long as he can because as soon as they get whatever info they want, he is as good as dead, but worse because he won't actually be dead. And as you see in Guantanamo, he likely won't even be able to take his own life.He's fucked as fucked can be.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I think Manning has at least been charged an indicted and was given Maranda rights. The rest of his treatment can be blamed on preventing release of classified info.ABE: Isn't he still under military jurisdiction as well?No such excuse for treating the bomber differently from say the DC sniper, unless they can classify him as an enemy combatant. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he lost his right to due process, does it? It depends. Are you asking how ethical it is or how legal it is? As far as legality, I am almost positive the Patriot Act allows Uncle Sam to label whoever the fuck they want as terrorists in an effort to bypass/forego pesky rights or due process.However, it is late and I am having trouble finding a credible source that confirms my suspicion. I do know that that is one of the major complaints about it. I will gladly strike this if evidence to the contrary is presented and I will pour over the act in detail tomorrow over some coffee.

No, but military trials are not like civilian ones. He won't get all the rights we would expect a civilian to get. I'm pretty sure that is not legally correct, and in any event I'd like to explore the particulars. I believe the Patriot Act includes some limitations on what can be done with American citizens captured on American soil absent some ties to a foreign interest. Is being the little brother and accomplice to a green card terrorist enough? I dunno.

I initially thought this to be the case, but found out otherwise: Sauce Baus (page 27 or just ctl-f for "due process") I apologize. I got my shitty bills confused. I was thinking of NDAA: Sauce BausCouple that with verbiage from the Patriot act that allows them to label whoever they want as a terrorist and bam, justice is hamfistedly not served.

Not sure what your final answer is, but the quoted paragraph does say that military guys get military style due process which agrees with what I said.

quote:

---

who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners

---

Looks like even with the Patriot Act and the NDAA (some powers of which were enacted with President Obama's signing statement that he would not use), would require tying the Russian to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Can that case be made?