Boston Marathon hit by explosions

[Coito ergo sum]

Gotta love the government.

A government, properly regulated, can serve a useful purpose.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Plus that there is a huge difference between having to make your own (illegal) bomb in the kitchen or garage, and just walk into a hardware store and (legally) buy a few kg of dynamite. How many more injuries would it lead to if just anybody could buy and handle dynamite freely.

Maybe they should conduct a test. Have a "free ready-made bombs" stand next to every bar. We'd all get a bang out of that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Don't fuck with the U.S. of A., or the FBI, or the Boston PD.

Social media put the pressure on the suspects so quickly they didn't have time to flee.

Gotta love the Internet.

You are a parody of yourself. One day it is going to be you shooting it out with the FBI et al. They won't be the good guys then, will they?

Why would I want to shoot it out with the FBI? I'll be shooting WITH the FBI.

The FBI is gubmint. When you and your crackerjack libbo mates take on teh socializts, you'll be the prime target of the FBI.

Point of fact: socialism =/= government and government =/= socialism.

Capitalism is not anti-government, and government is, in fact, required to maintain a capitalist system.

And, socialism is not necessarily anathema to libertarianism -- as there are socialist libertarians (aka "left-libertarianism").

[Coito ergo sum]

Who are you or they to interpret the consitution? It's the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. If they don't have a problem, then why should a bunch of nutjobs be allowed to attack the gumbint because they personally don't like a civil society?

It is a role of the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution, but it is also everyone else's role too. For example, a Congressman must interpret the Constitution when considering legislation, because he or she too is under an obligation to protect the Constitution and to knowingly violate it would be a breach of that obligation. That's why Diane Feinstein is well-within her purview to comment that treating the Boston monsters as "enemy combatants" would be unconstitutional. If that is her view of it, then she needs to act accordingly.

A police officer is always under an independent obligation to not violate people's constitutional rights. If, for example, he is ordered by his boss, or by Congress, or the by the President of the United States to arrest a person without probable cause -- then he is honor bound to refuse that order. It may be difficult. He may be fired. But, just like a soldier is honor-bound not to slaughter the residents of My-Lai, Vietnam, even if ordered to do so, so too do the rest of us have the obligation to follow the highest law of the land.

We all interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is safest that way. Suggesting that the Constitution is only what a certain person or few people say it is, and the rest of us don't have an opinion is where we run into bigger problems.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe the US should invade Chechnya and bomb the rubble there to send a message, though?

No such action will be contemplated. We're back to pre-2001, "arrest and prosecute" mode, except where drone strikes are concerned. This will guarantee, though, that there will be another full-scale war when someone finally does "9/11 x 1000."

[Coito ergo sum]

Because bombs being illegal made a difference here...

Bombs being illegal makes a difference every day.
Thousands of lives are saved every month, because bombs are illegal.

Nonsense. These bombs were pressure cookers with nails and ball bearings in it, and the explosive materials used were not illegal. It's certainly unlawful to do what they did, but they built these devices themselves out of lawfully obtained materials.

Ahem. I think bombs entirely made of legally obtainable components are illegal. It's just more difficult to enforce the law in a case like this.

Sure, but, so is carrying a crow bar, mask, lock-pick, and other "burglar's tools" when you have the intent to burgle or attempt to burgle.

The point is, it doesn't matter that "bombs are illegal" (which they aren't, per se, anyway). These guys just went ahead and made the bombs from easily obtainable stuff. And, regular bombs aren't "illegal" - they're regulated. REGULATED. Licenses - permits -- etc.

[pErvinalia]

Don't fuck with the U.S. of A., or the FBI, or the Boston PD.

Social media put the pressure on the suspects so quickly they didn't have time to flee.

Gotta love the Internet.

You are a parody of yourself. One day it is going to be you shooting it out with the FBI et al. They won't be the good guys then, will they?

Why would I want to shoot it out with the FBI? I'll be shooting WITH the FBI.

The FBI is gubmint. When you and your crackerjack libbo mates take on teh socializts, you'll be the prime target of the FBI.

Point of fact: socialism =/= government and government =/= socialism.

No shit, Sherlock. Try telling Seth that.

Capitalism is not anti-government, and government is, in fact, required to maintain a capitalist system.

And, socialism is not necessarily anathema to libertarianism -- as there are socialist libertarians (aka "left-libertarianism").

Thanks for that, Professor Obvious.

[pErvinalia]

Who are you or they to interpret the consitution? It's the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. If they don't have a problem, then why should a bunch of nutjobs be allowed to attack the gumbint because they personally don't like a civil society?

It is a role of the SCOTUS to interpret the constitution, but it is also everyone else's role too. For example, a Congressman must interpret the Constitution when considering legislation, because he or she too is under an obligation to protect the Constitution and to knowingly violate it would be a breach of that obligation. That's why Diane Feinstein is well-within her purview to comment that treating the Boston monsters as "enemy combatants" would be unconstitutional. If that is her view of it, then she needs to act accordingly.

A police officer is always under an independent obligation to not violate people's constitutional rights. If, for example, he is ordered by his boss, or by Congress, or the by the President of the United States to arrest a person without probable cause -- then he is honor bound to refuse that order. It may be difficult. He may be fired. But, just like a soldier is honor-bound not to slaughter the residents of My-Lai, Vietnam, even if ordered to do so, so too do the rest of us have the obligation to follow the highest law of the land.

We all interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is safest that way. Suggesting that the Constitution is only what a certain person or few people say it is, and the rest of us don't have an opinion is where we run into bigger problems.

That's a recipe for disaster. (as you can see by the large number of whackjobs you have in the US who talk about overthrowing the gubmint). The ordinary citizen, let alone the very poorly educated citizen is in no position to make interpretations of complex issues like this. If they were, then you wouldn't need a law degree and bucketloads of experience to serve on the supreme court.

[Coito ergo sum]

You are a parody of yourself. One day it is going to be you shooting it out with the FBI et al. They won't be the good guys then, will they?

Why would I want to shoot it out with the FBI? I'll be shooting WITH the FBI.

The FBI is gubmint. When you and your crackerjack libbo mates take on teh socializts, you'll be the prime target of the FBI.

Point of fact: socialism =/= government and government =/= socialism.

No shit, Sherlock. Try telling Seth that.

I have very dramatic disputes with Seth on various issues. I typically do not agree with him. However, he has never claimed that government is socialism, not that I have have ever seen.

The people that do that tend to be liberals or left-leaning folks who say things like "if socialism is so bad, then what about public libraries, fire departments and the police...?" That's what is often used to scoff at those who oppose socialism.

Capitalism is not anti-government, and government is, in fact, required to maintain a capitalist system.

And, socialism is not necessarily anathema to libertarianism -- as there are socialist libertarians (aka "left-libertarianism").

Thanks for that, Professor Obvious.

Well, I guess I'll stop pointing it out when people stop suggesting that being procapitalist or antisocialist means that one must be for no government.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why is it that procaplitalists and antisocialists are constantly demanding an end to all governments?

[pErvinalia]

Why would I want to shoot it out with the FBI? I'll be shooting WITH the FBI.

The FBI is gubmint. When you and your crackerjack libbo mates take on teh socializts, you'll be the prime target of the FBI.

Point of fact: socialism =/= government and government =/= socialism.

No shit, Sherlock. Try telling Seth that.

I have very dramatic disputes with Seth on various issues. I typically do not agree with him. However, he has never claimed that government is socialism, not that I have have ever seen.

Seth thinks everyone to the left of him is a Marxist. So unless government is made up of predominantly Seths, it's going to be a socialist mind control global one government organisation.

Capitalism is not anti-government, and government is, in fact, required to maintain a capitalist system.

And, socialism is not necessarily anathema to libertarianism -- as there are socialist libertarians (aka "left-libertarianism").

Thanks for that, Professor Obvious.

Well, I guess I'll stop pointing it out when people stop suggesting that being procapitalist or antisocialist means that one must be for no government.

So, you're going to keep pointing it out to people who already understand that?

[Tero]

Republicans are pushing for a new concept of Miranda rights. The professional criminals are presumably good for the economy. It keeps security companies going. The mugger may have money left for the baby's diapers, after they buy some heroin (not taxed, poor retyrn to society). So I think killing a spouse also should not give you Miranda rights. Not a capitalist crime, unless you mabage to spend his/her money before arrest.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a recipe for disaster. (as you can see by the large number of whackjobs you have in the US who talk about overthrowing the gubmint). The ordinary citizen, let alone the very poorly educated citizen is in no position to make interpretations of complex issues like this. If they were, then you wouldn't need a law degree and bucketloads of experience to serve on the supreme court.

Well, you might think that, but it really is not a recipe for disaster. It's kind of like everyone being responsible for their own morality, which is one of the bulwarks of rational atheism. There is no final authority which interprets what is moral or not moral, we each have to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral. The same is true for constitutional vs. unconstitutional. Everyone is free to think murder is moral, and slavery is constitutional, but the interplay of all the millions of views on it is what ultimately decides.

The ordinary citizen MUST make decisions like this. There is no other choice. There is nobody else to make the decision, or at least nobody else who ought to be handed the exclusive authority. Elected officials ought not be handed exclusive authority, as they serve at the pleasure of their constituents. Their constituents are required to determine which candidate is fit to make government decisions, so if the constituents can make that choice, why would we deny them the right to decide what is constitutional?

It, of course, doesn't mean they will be correct. Every day you and I have to "interpret" the law in a million different ways. Is it lawful for me to park here? Am I allowed to use self defense now? Sometimes that decision will be wrong in the eyes of a judge. So be it. We are still charged, inevitably, with making the initial decision. There is no way out of it. As ill-equipped as we all are to do it, we MUST do it. And, it helps nothing to simply abdicate that authority and take the position that we have no business even trying.

[Coito ergo sum]

Like morality -- when you take away the supposed "law giver" and demand that people make moral and ethical decisions based on reason, they tend to behave BETTER than those that make decisions based on the orders of authority. Hence, a disproportionately low percentage of atheists in prison, and a lower divorce rate among atheists than the religious.

Same goes for the law and constitutionality -- tell people they have to rely on authority, and they will pick their preferred authority and stop thinking. Tell people it's their job to think, and the very act of giving it a go is a world of benefit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Republicans are pushing for a new concept of Miranda rights. The professional criminals are presumably good for the economy. It keeps security companies going. The mugger may have money left for the baby's diapers, after they buy some heroin (not taxed, poor retyrn to society). So I think killing a spouse also should not give you Miranda rights. Not a capitalist crime, unless you mabage to spend his/her money before arrest.

This is where people are missing it.

Not being READ your Miranda rights is not the same thing thing as not HAVING Miranda rights.

Look - cops don't have to read ANYONE Miranda rights just because they are arresting someone. They are free to arrest someone without reading rights, and they do so all the time. Sometimes cops will plop the person in the back of the car and talk about the weather. Sometimes the dopey criminal will start talking and make all kinds of useful statements without ever having been questioned. If they do that, the evidence is admissible.

The only time Miranda is really relevant is when a person is subjected to "custodial interrogation." If they interrogate a suspect, and the suspect confesses or gives evidence against himself BECAUSE OF the custodial interrogation, and the Miranda rights have not been read, then that evidence MAY, but not in all cases will, be excluded from evidence at trial.

In a case where the evidence is mountainous, though, the cops may not give a flying fuck about answers to questions for the purposes of trial. They may just want information for other purposes, like further investigation. In which case, if they never seek to introduce answers to interrogation questions in court, they never have to read the rights at all.

This is not different for anyone else. This is not some special rule for these Chechen cock knockers.