you want to rehabilitate the person who attacked a major city in the name of religion?? I am sorry but I am done arguing with you. If you dont think he should pay for his crimes and want to make him better there is nothing I can say or do to convince you you are wrong (you are) and as such are not worth my time. Have a good day. if he gets rehabilitated, you will let him live with you right? i mean theres no danger anymore correct??
so me wanting the man who did this to boston to get the justice he deserves (death) is somehow worse than what he did. I am sorry , we dont always agree (in fact i see you argue my posts quite often) but that is just bat shit crazy to equate wanting to give justice to those hurt to be worse than what has happened. You are the sick one if you think that, not me
depends on how he looks at it when he comes out. What happens when he comes out and thinks to himself "well, everyone thinks i was gonna shoot up a school, everyone treated me like i was gonna shoot up a school, i might as well shoot up a school so at least i did what i was accused of doing"
I wasnt saying no trial by any means. I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I am simply saying that there is no justification not to find him guilty and put him to death.
Fair in the eyes of the public may not be "fair" in the eyes of the bomber.
Lets face it, some crimes are clear cut, others not so much. When a case is clear cut, we shouldnt waste time and money on it. For example if I rob a bank and have video and photos of me doing it, have fingerprints on the money, hell lets even say they find the money on me. There is no reason that the trial should go on and on and on, there is no reason I should be able to appeal the conviction when the facts are as clear cut. Thats how it is in this situation. Same goes for the ft hood shooter. They should have just taken him out from the start rather than let him sit in a cell for the past few years wasting our money
I have, and i was there, in the city not at the race. Everyone I know wants him dead, anything less will be an outrage. There are one or 2 people I know who dont want him dead, thats it.
well yes, When you are in the military you have a higher code and more restrictions than the civilians, if it were the other way around id have an issue but with a VOLUNTARY military, i dont see any issue with how its done
what is so wrong with seeking justice? Some of us dont have any issue with an eye for an eye in extreme cases. I would put this in one of those cases. I didnt know wanting justice for a city is the same as someone who blew up said city. Its kinda sad that you reached that conclusion simply because I want justice.
As long as he gets a fair trial (and by fair I mean a death sentence) I dont care where they charge him. But I have no problem with someone who is a traitor being tried by the military for the crimes committed here. Plain and simple his acts were acts against america, and as such I see no problem either way they chose to go.
so let me get this right. someone from another country some 2K miles away from the situation at hand decided to meddle in something that was not their concern?
thought crimes?? I mean seriously everyone knows that if you are going to do something stupid like that, you dont post about it, you dont joke about it, you just do it. Its never the ones who say things like that you need to worry about its the ones who are silent to watch out for.
Im most likely moving to austin in the next few months, not a fan of hearing this though
as explained before, military definition for WMD is not the same as criminal code definition. By the criminal code definition, he did in fact use a WMD, by military standards he did not. That could explain why he is having a criminal trial rather than a military trial.
onyl cheeper if you consider all the appeals and extra bullshit that most on death row push for. In a clear cut case like this, just hang him and be done with it. That or a firing squad where his victims get to pull the trigger.
well I guess this is where the nit picking begins. what "level" of destruction do YOU see equaling "mass destruction" vs what I or others consider "mass destruction" If the cost of the damage is in the millions or billions, and there is a large number of injured or dead, I would call that mass destruction. Hell I would even call it treason what he did.
I can agree with that. I just dont see the outrage by the submitter. If we look at the facts. the man on trial did commit "mass destruction". Sure it is reaching but that doesnt make it untrue.
weapon of mass destruction to me is exactly what it sounds like. does it cause "mass destruction" if the answer is yes, than it is in fact a weapon of mass destruction. 2 bombs going off in a crowded city seems to fit that definition pretty well IMO
I dont have a problem with the term being used. it is a legitimate term. The bombs did in fact cause "mass destruction" therefore he did use a weapon of mass destruction. Having said that he should simply be hung in the center of boston when this is all over with, i dont care what they call it as long as he is left lifeless in the end. If he gets a life sentence instead of death I can just see the riots that will break out in boston
The reason I say the government should change it is that the government is under 300 years old while the religions are older. therefore they should have dibs on the word
you ignore that there will be gay people who will aslo be against this because it isnt the word "married" There are people on both sides who are fucking retarded
Slashdot Mirror
you want to rehabilitate the person who attacked a major city in the name of religion?? I am sorry but I am done arguing with you. If you dont think he should pay for his crimes and want to make him better there is nothing I can say or do to convince you you are wrong (you are) and as such are not worth my time. Have a good day. if he gets rehabilitated, you will let him live with you right? i mean theres no danger anymore correct??
so me wanting the man who did this to boston to get the justice he deserves (death) is somehow worse than what he did. I am sorry , we dont always agree (in fact i see you argue my posts quite often) but that is just bat shit crazy to equate wanting to give justice to those hurt to be worse than what has happened. You are the sick one if you think that, not me
so what do YOU propose be done in this case?
as I said, not ALL cases, not even most cases, but the .001 cases that ARE clear cut, why waste the money?
depends on how he looks at it when he comes out. What happens when he comes out and thinks to himself "well, everyone thinks i was gonna shoot up a school, everyone treated me like i was gonna shoot up a school, i might as well shoot up a school so at least i did what i was accused of doing"
I wasnt saying no trial by any means. I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I am simply saying that there is no justification not to find him guilty and put him to death.
sometimes the 2 are the same. This is one of those cases. Should we bake him a cake and say "please, just dont do it again ok?"
Fair in the eyes of the public may not be "fair" in the eyes of the bomber.
Lets face it, some crimes are clear cut, others not so much. When a case is clear cut, we shouldnt waste time and money on it. For example if I rob a bank and have video and photos of me doing it, have fingerprints on the money, hell lets even say they find the money on me. There is no reason that the trial should go on and on and on, there is no reason I should be able to appeal the conviction when the facts are as clear cut. Thats how it is in this situation. Same goes for the ft hood shooter. They should have just taken him out from the start rather than let him sit in a cell for the past few years wasting our money
I have, and i was there, in the city not at the race. Everyone I know wants him dead, anything less will be an outrage. There are one or 2 people I know who dont want him dead, thats it.
well yes, When you are in the military you have a higher code and more restrictions than the civilians, if it were the other way around id have an issue but with a VOLUNTARY military, i dont see any issue with how its done
new job, cant do it
what is so wrong with seeking justice? Some of us dont have any issue with an eye for an eye in extreme cases. I would put this in one of those cases. I didnt know wanting justice for a city is the same as someone who blew up said city. Its kinda sad that you reached that conclusion simply because I want justice.
As long as he gets a fair trial (and by fair I mean a death sentence) I dont care where they charge him. But I have no problem with someone who is a traitor being tried by the military for the crimes committed here. Plain and simple his acts were acts against america, and as such I see no problem either way they chose to go.
so let me get this right. someone from another country some 2K miles away from the situation at hand decided to meddle in something that was not their concern?
thought crimes?? I mean seriously everyone knows that if you are going to do something stupid like that, you dont post about it, you dont joke about it, you just do it. Its never the ones who say things like that you need to worry about its the ones who are silent to watch out for.
Im most likely moving to austin in the next few months, not a fan of hearing this though
as explained before, military definition for WMD is not the same as criminal code definition. By the criminal code definition, he did in fact use a WMD, by military standards he did not. That could explain why he is having a criminal trial rather than a military trial.
onyl cheeper if you consider all the appeals and extra bullshit that most on death row push for. In a clear cut case like this, just hang him and be done with it. That or a firing squad where his victims get to pull the trigger.
perhaps that explains why they are trying him in criminal court rather than military court?
well I guess this is where the nit picking begins. what "level" of destruction do YOU see equaling "mass destruction" vs what I or others consider "mass destruction" If the cost of the damage is in the millions or billions, and there is a large number of injured or dead, I would call that mass destruction. Hell I would even call it treason what he did.
I can agree with that. I just dont see the outrage by the submitter. If we look at the facts. the man on trial did commit "mass destruction". Sure it is reaching but that doesnt make it untrue.
weapon of mass destruction to me is exactly what it sounds like. does it cause "mass destruction" if the answer is yes, than it is in fact a weapon of mass destruction. 2 bombs going off in a crowded city seems to fit that definition pretty well IMO
I dont have a problem with the term being used. it is a legitimate term. The bombs did in fact cause "mass destruction" therefore he did use a weapon of mass destruction. Having said that he should simply be hung in the center of boston when this is all over with, i dont care what they call it as long as he is left lifeless in the end. If he gets a life sentence instead of death I can just see the riots that will break out in boston
The reason I say the government should change it is that the government is under 300 years old while the religions are older. therefore they should have dibs on the word
nothing! And thats the beauty of the entire idea!
you ignore that there will be gay people who will aslo be against this because it isnt the word "married" There are people on both sides who are fucking retarded