http://www.lucasforums.com/ A place for friendly discussion of serious topics. en Sat, 18 May 2013 09:54:04 GMT vBulletin 60 http://lucasforums.com/images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.lucasforums.com/ http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=212226&goto=newpost Wed, 08 May 2013 18:02:21 GMT With the recent reappearance of Amanda Berry, I got to thinking again of my sister. She was kidnapped, and killed when I was young. She was missing for over a year, and even though we had no evidence she was alive, we held on to the hope that she had simply run away. My parents were not exactly the... With the recent reappearance of Amanda Berry, I got to thinking again of my sister. She was kidnapped, and killed when I was young. She was missing for over a year, and even though we had no evidence she was alive, we held on to the hope that she had simply run away. My parents were not exactly the nicest parents to her. She was constantly sneaking out, and had made attempts at running away several times before that. For the year and a half that she was missing, I had built up in my mind that she had simply run far enough that she had made a new name for herself, and started a new life.

Then it came. The police officer showed up and told us that my sister was in fact dead. It wasn't really a shock to us, so much as it was crushing. Her remains are now buried in the best location in the cemetery my grandparents ran. There was a part of me that was relieved. As bad as it sounds, there was a finality to it. She was killed with a large stone, and left partially covered by a piece of plywood. She was identified by the clothes she had on and a single remaining finger. At last we had our confirmation of her fate. She was not living as some hippy, on the road with a few friendly people. Her story had concluded, aside from her killer remaining free... And he's still free to this day, more than 30 years later.

My question to you, is this: Would you rather your relative be held captive like Amanda Berry, Or dead like my sister? In all honesty, I feel that my sister's fate was better in that she did not have to suffer the indignity, and torture suffered by the three women recently freed. While her killer is still a fugitive from justice, and the torturing SOB's in Amanda Berry's case will face criminal charges, and likely "Prisoner Justice" I feel that in my eyes it is better that she suffered less... ]]> Tommycat http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=212226 http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=212188&goto=newpost Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:51:56 GMT I was disturbed by the Justice Depertment spokesman claiming that the bombs used in Boston (Made with fireworks powder) should be labeled weapons of mass destruction.... I was disturbed by the Justice Depertment spokesman claiming that the bombs used in Boston (Made with fireworks powder) should be labeled weapons of mass destruction. http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...6dd_story.html

I know I complain constantly, but this is something that must be addressed. Since the first time the term was used (1937 after bombing of Guernica Spain) it has changed until the modern definition is nuclear, chemical or biological. Not what is defined as a low (Compared to modern high) explosive device.

In other words, something that has a more far reaching affect than a simple iron bomb.

As much as it might sound like arrogance, the world tends to use our terms when they do something that we abhor. It wasn't until after Nurnberg that other nations (North Korea and Vietnam spring to mind) decided they had the right to try 'war criminals' for their crimes. Since in the two cases I mentioned, this was used as propaganda rather than factual legal meanings, it makes you wonder why we don't just shut the hell up.

For those who want to ignore what I am saying, think of this:

If the low explosive bombs set off in Boston are WMDs, then so is every bomb dropped by any man in the course of any war since the Spanish Civil War is a WMD. Every (Insert the nation you dislike) pilot who has dropped a cluster bomb used a WMD. Every one in an Artillery unit from the General who ordered the barrage down to the 'cannon cockers' deployed WMDs. For that matter, grunt carrying a Claymore is bearing a WMD.

Bad enough? No? Remember Nick Berg? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg. He was 'executed' after the events at Abu Graib hit the world press. Ignore the fact that the US government had already investigated and arrested the perpetrators, demoting the Brigadier General who was in charge of the Prison. Ignore the fact that the very release of the photos (With the American faces shown) tainted the evidence badly enough that the full weight of the military legal system could not be brought to bear.

For that matter, ignore the fact that it wasn't a cover up as the Press claimed, it was a legitimate ongoing investigation that under both military and civil law here in the US must be kept from the press because anything published is automatically tainted and cannot be used during the trial. Think instead of a little remembered rule of International law:

If your enemy violates international law, you are allowed to ignore that specific rule. The reason the British began blowing German cities to hell during WWII was because one German bomber jettisoned it's bombs over a civilian area, and the Brits replied by carpet bombing six German cities.Every person in Occupied Europe and England who died from the later bombings can be linked to that one accident.

Now jump to 2004. Terrorists kidnap Berg, then, in retaliation for Abu Ghraib, cut off his head with a bayonet and published the video of that action.

Do you want some poor kid captured by terrorists judged guilty and executed because some bureaucrat can't keep his mouth shut? ]]> machievelli http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=212188 http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=212159&goto=newpost Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:58:31 GMT I just learned that the surviving 'Boston Bomber', Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will be questioned without being read his rights under the Miranda decision of 1966. This bothers me. If you want to understand why, read on.

Anyone my age or a little older remembers an old TV show named Adam 12. During just about every episode, one of the officers would pull out a card, and read the following:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a court of law.

You have the right to attorney before questioning. If you do so, and cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for you free of charge.

Then they ask if you understand this, if you give up the right to silence, and then if you give up the right to an attorney.

What this litany is, is a repition of your rights under the fifth and sixth amendments to keep the government from using other means to convict you of a crime. The Miranda decision was passed because back in 1966, a man was convicted using testimony without being informed. Oddly enough after the fact, before that decision was passed, cops did not have to inform you at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

There has been an exception created in the Miranda warning, thanks to a rape case in 1984. The victim had claimed that her assailant had a gun. When he was later captured in a grocery store, the officer searching him found an empty shoulder holster. He asked (Before reading his rights) where the gun was, and the man being arrested motioned toward where he had ditched it. The trial was challenged because the officer asked first, yet the challenge was denied 'in the interests of public safety'.

In the last decade or so, it has been used several times, almost always in terrorism cases.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...terrorism.html

But if your thought is 'good', remember this:

First, remember that Tsarnaev is in a hospital after being injured in his arrest. There is no 'legal' reason not to question him while he lays there doped to the eyeballs on pain killers.

Second, while he is in this condition, he has to remember that he even has these rights to invoke them. Back when I was 24 I had a blinding toothache, and a friend gave me a pain pill that had me flying so high I didn't even know what planet I was on. Since then I have found I have a high pain threshold, but a very low one for drugs used for pain. These days if I get a toothache I just pop a couple of Aspirin, and I'm good. Anything stronger, and I am pretty much useless until it wears off.

So picture this kid flying between the stars, being asked questions that will later come up as evidence.

Third, he's from Chechnya. He's only been in this country for ten years. If you have been watching TV during that time, you might have seen a Miranda scene, but it is not likely that you have heard a lot about it. So he might not even know he even has rights. Most countries (Including his homeland) don't observe them.

Finally, who decides when this 'public safety' exemption is used? Answer, the Justice department and the Attorney General. I.E., your prosecutor and the cops.

The record is alarming for two reasons. First, while the Feds claimed to get valuable information from the cases where it has been used, DOJ has not bothered to get permission in the terrorist cases where it has been invoked before. They have just assumed they had that ability.

Worse yet, after the fact there have been protests, but in those cases the protests were not about the prisoner's rights... They were protests that Miranda was used at all!

So we have the government deciding when they can invoke this exemption. Not a pretty thought when you consider that if they use it in terrorist cases, what stop them from nailing some drug mule carrying into the country and question him to arrest the traffickers. ]]> machievelli http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=212159