Exactly. A criminal is a criminal, foreign or domestic. Labeling as a "Terrorist" doesn't change the crime in any way, shape, or form. Large crime or not, it's still a crime, and the perpetrator is still a criminal.
Then why have "hate" crimes? All that adding "hate crime " to a crime charge is to add another charge to the crime and possibly add additional jail time.
Are you sure of this? Can an act of terrorism not also be an act of war?
I would not call Pearl Harbor an act of terror. It was way more than what terror could be. And that is "an act of war". If you want to call it terror then what would you call our firebombing of cities during the war along with dropping the a-bomb?
bobbyhawks wrote: Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. It was an act of war by a sovereign nation that caused terror on a national scale, but it was not a terrorist attack.
Are you sure of this? Can an act of terrorism not also be an act of war?
Yes, I am sure that Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. A strategic military attack of one of our nearest outposts to Japan is not the same as going specifically after civilians.
im2kull wrote:
bobbyhawks wrote:
KCMax wrote:I do find it kind of interesting that some of the people who were arguing just a few weeks ago that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct to protect US citizens against the federal government are eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government.
Exactly. They are dead set against a list of people who own guns or checking to see if someone is crazy before they buy one, but they are fine with a list of mostly innocents that allows the government to read email and wiretap without a warrant. Which invasion of privacy is worse? Also, which right to privacy is more explicitly guaranteed through our consitution?
Who are "They"? That's quite an assumption you're making in saying that all of "Them" are for the 2nd amendment, and could care less about the 5th. You shouldn't make assumptions, at least not poorly thought ones.
If you read KCMax's statement, it is quite clear who "they" are. "They," in this instance, are folks who "were arguing just a few weeks ago that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct to protect US citizens against the federal government [and are now] eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government." That is not an assumption. There are examples all over Congress and in the media.
bobbyhawks wrote: eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government.
The SC has ruled there is an imminent danger exclusion and therefore Miranda does not apply. That is what many have referred to in this case. Much like there are limits to freedom of speech and the right to arms. The major question to he imminent danger exclusion is how long the law can withhold Miranda.
Exactly. A criminal is a criminal, foreign or domestic. Labeling as a "Terrorist" doesn't change the crime in any way, shape, or form. Large crime or not, it's still a crime, and the perpetrator is still a criminal.
Then why have "hate" crimes? All that adding "hate crime " to a crime charge is to add another charge to the crime and possibly add additional jail time.
bobbyhawks wrote: eager to circumvent Fifth Amendment requirements for a US citizen being held by the federal government.
The SC has ruled there is an imminent danger exclusion and therefore Miranda does not apply. That is what many have referred to in this case. Much like there are limits to freedom of speech and the right to arms. The major question to he imminent danger exclusion is how long the law can withhold Miranda.
With the authorities ruling out any further imminent plans by Tsaranev, it seems as though the imminent danger has passed.
"They" are those most partisan Republicans that were fervently defending the 2nd Amendment, while also fervently calling for the non-application of the 5th Amendment. Certainly libertarians and other more principled conservatives don't fall into that category.
