Originally Posted by UnderOveur

Yes. No question of it.





Playing Devil's advocate here (<----don't forget that)....but you understand why this is, don't you? It's not to protect or show any leniency to terrorists or criminals, it's to protect the innocent against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. This is the whole reason why the 5th Amendment exists. Miranda rights/pleading the 5th not to incriminate yourself? This is to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

And protecting the innocent...like guaranteeing freedom and the other Amendments...is what sets us apart from the monsters like the perps of the Boston bombing.

Just as all of us would like to see the full weight of justice and retribution upon the guilty in this case, we all don't want anyone who is innocent to be held guilty for it, either.

This is why "we try to deal with these terrorists the same way that we would deal with a common criminal."

Btw, what is the difference between a "common criminal" and an uncommon one?? I've never seen any formal distinction of them in US jurisprudence

Originally Posted by Ajax

The difference is unlike common criminals, the terrorists usually have a more defined political agenda, some kind of organizational structure, more resources, and they're aiming for mass shock/impact. All this non stop coverage on the news of this recent tragic event in Boston is EXACTLY what they were trying to accomplish. Terrorists usually select high profile targets precisely because they know they'll get the media attention they want.

Originally Posted by Ajax

The difference is unlike common criminals, the terrorists usually have a more defined political agenda, some kind of organizational structure, more resources, and they're aiming for mass shock/impact. Terrorists usually select high profile targets precisely because they know they'll get the media attention they want.

Originally Posted by Prom

I find it odd that the term terrorist has evolved to only encompass Islamic radicals or organized well funded political activists. What happened to a terrorist being described as a person who's actions are meant to cause fear, regaurdless of affiliations, color, creed, or external support. It is strange that we would base our definition of terror on how many people were cheering their actions. A lone wolf hell bent on destruction is just as much of a terrorist as any politically or ideologically driven organization and should be given the same treatment.

Originally Posted by Cubdriver

this was a disenfranchised family of Eastern Europeans who despite a solid start in the US suffered a radical religious reversion, coupled with an equally radical outburst of uninformed faithful action. I see it more as a human psychological tragedy than one of racism, fanaticism, terrorism, or a particular faith.

Originally Posted by jungle

This is going to eventually be exposed as part of a much larger group, well supported, directed and funded. And what the media just cannot bring itself to say-muslim.