Boston Bombings

Forums › Off topic › Boston Bombings

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

234 posts

Master Geek

#800956 17-Apr-2013 13:33

networkn:

What about 3000 people? 10000, 100,000? Where do you draw the line out of interest?

Sorry edited my previous post there

Someone killing that many people should be convicted

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800962 17-Apr-2013 13:35

freitasm:
networkn: I am not saying it's ideal, but it would appear there are circumstances preventing due process to run it's course and I am saying with the evidence being presented to me, I am happy to trust the elected parties who clearly have the information, to make that call.

But how can you trust they have the correct information? I can't come to trust a government hiding information from the public, even if it's for the "greater good".

In a court of law the information must be presented and a judge will tell the jury if it's relevant to the case or not. A jury will deliberate and decide. And this is public.

You advocate secret over due process.

You must be kidding? How much of what goes on inside parliament do you think you know? There is a reason stuff is classified. Name a single government in the world who is 100% transparent? It wouldn't work, the country would be paralized by people objecting to everything, much as we have in NZ already. You can't get a road built because someone objects.

Now are you talking about "illegal" detainment of terror suspects or crime in general? They are two VERY different discussions. I advocate trusting the people elected to make the decisions on matters of terror as they have significantly more information than I will ever have. I can't guarantee they get it right every time, but if you want guarantees you are in the wrong place.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79296 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#800965 17-Apr-2013 13:37

networkn:
freitasm:
networkn: I am not saying it's ideal, but it would appear there are circumstances preventing due process to run it's course and I am saying with the evidence being presented to me, I am happy to trust the elected parties who clearly have the information, to make that call.

But how can you trust they have the correct information? I can't come to trust a government hiding information from the public, even if it's for the "greater good".

In a court of law the information must be presented and a judge will tell the jury if it's relevant to the case or not. A jury will deliberate and decide. And this is public.

You advocate secret over due process.

You must be kidding? How much of what goes on inside parliament do you think you know? There is a reason stuff is classified. Name a single government in the world who is 100% transparent? It wouldn't work, the country would be paralized by people objecting to everything, much as we have in NZ already. You can't get a road built because someone objects.

Now are you talking about "illegal" detainment of terror suspects or crime in general? They are two VERY different discussions.

I don't know everything that goes inside the Parliament, but those are open proceedings and if I wanted to know I could. Another thing to consider is that in an open society investigative journalism will dig this out for citizens.

Of course there isn't a government that's 100% transparent. Some operations are clearly confidential by nature and I accept that. What I don't accept is incarceration without due process, for any reason, alleged or not.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800967 17-Apr-2013 13:40

freitasm:
networkn:
freitasm:
networkn: I am not saying it's ideal, but it would appear there are circumstances preventing due process to run it's course and I am saying with the evidence being presented to me, I am happy to trust the elected parties who clearly have the information, to make that call.

But how can you trust they have the correct information? I can't come to trust a government hiding information from the public, even if it's for the "greater good".

In a court of law the information must be presented and a judge will tell the jury if it's relevant to the case or not. A jury will deliberate and decide. And this is public.

You advocate secret over due process.

You must be kidding? How much of what goes on inside parliament do you think you know? There is a reason stuff is classified. Name a single government in the world who is 100% transparent? It wouldn't work, the country would be paralized by people objecting to everything, much as we have in NZ already. You can't get a road built because someone objects.

Now are you talking about "illegal" detainment of terror suspects or crime in general? They are two VERY different discussions.

I don't know everything that goes inside the Parliament, but those are open proceedings and if I wanted to know I could. Another thing to consider is that in an open society investigative journalism will dig this out for citizens.

Of course there isn't a government that's 100% transparent. Some operations are clearly confidential by nature and I accept that. What I don't accept is incarceration without due process, for any reason, alleged or not.

You just contradicted yourself. You want

But how can you trust they have the correct information? I can't come to trust a government hiding information from the public, even if it's for the "greater good".

Then

Of course there isn't a government that's 100% transparent. Some operations are clearly confidential by nature and I accept that. What I don't accept is incarceration without due process, for any reason, alleged or not.

There will be a reason you don't understand (due to it's classified nature) why these people aren't being given due process. Why else would they not do it? Other criminals get due process?

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800968 17-Apr-2013 13:42

groynk:
networkn:

What about 3000 people? 10000, 100,000? Where do you draw the line out of interest?

Sorry edited my previous post there

Someone killing that many people should be convicted

Heh well conviction, wow that makes it ok then. Surely prevention would be better? I am guessing but security concerns DURING the trial, classified nature of the evidence would be another, and the risk to the public if this person gets off on a technicality, especially since the risk isn't to 1-2 people, but likely to a much larger portion of population.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79296 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#800971 17-Apr-2013 13:46

networkn: There will be a reason you don't understand (due to it's classified nature) why these people aren't being given due process. Why else would they not do it? Other criminals get due process?

You're being condescending here.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#800975 17-Apr-2013 13:50

freitasm:
networkn: There will be a reason you don't understand (due to it's classified nature) why these people aren't being given due process. Why else would they not do it? Other criminals get due process?

You're being condescending here.

I am not, I think you have misunderstood my tone.

No-one except the decision makers will understand the specific reasons behind it, that is fact. It's also fact that the information is classified.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79296 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#800978 17-Apr-2013 13:51

Your tone does indeed makes it very hard to agree with your assertions.

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#801002 17-Apr-2013 14:04

networkn:
groynk:
networkn:

What about 3000 people? 10000, 100,000? Where do you draw the line out of interest?

Sorry edited my previous post there

Someone killing that many people should be convicted

Heh well conviction, wow that makes it ok then. Surely prevention would be better? I am guessing but security concerns DURING the trial, classified nature of the evidence would be another, and the risk to the public if this person gets off on a technicality, especially since the risk isn't to 1-2 people, but likely to a much larger portion of population.

I'm not sure how someone committing mass murder can get off on a technicality?

Prevention is something we can definitely agree on. Methods to do so are something I don't think we can.

The biggest change I would like to see is the U.S. working on the reasons people want to blow them up, they are people, deserving or not.
(Hint: it's not good v evil, and it's not because they are jealous, some of it is arrogance.)

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#802662 20-Apr-2013 09:29

So one suspect dead, the other being hunted in a massive man hunt.
Looks like all those claiming it was another set up (911 conspiresy) or motive to attack an oil rich state (How much oil is in Afghanistan?) are completely wrong (surprise!)

Was listening to the police feed before it was shut down and they were saying the dead one had a trigger device and they strongly believe the still at large one is wearing a suicide device. There were calls for bomb squads everything a bag etc was found somewhere. Rightly so given how many devices these guys have set off so far

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79296 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#802667 20-Apr-2013 09:39

On thing I don't understand (who understand their minds?)

After doing what they've done, why kill a university police officer, rob a 7 Eleven and carjack a vehicle?

Wouldn't be better, you know, stay low, get out of Mass into another state and keep moving? At some point police would find out their identities and issue a national alert, their lives would be pretty much finished but why waste all in a shoot out?

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#802669 20-Apr-2013 09:42

They probably expected to get away with it and didn't have an exit strategy in place.
Or given the devices they had they had more planned but didn't get it done in time?
High chance we will never know

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79296 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#802671 20-Apr-2013 09:44

Their aunt comes with a conspiracy theory... But their uncle says they're losers.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79296 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#802674 20-Apr-2013 09:49

It would be a shame if the younger brother is not captured alive. They were both raised in the USA, father and uncle seem down to Earth, so some external influence got them. That's the root that needs to be cut short.

Brunzy

2016 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#802692 20-Apr-2013 10:29

Just off the phone to son in Cambridge , bomb squad on their way to a park nearby

1 | 2 | 3 | 4