There seems to be some disagreement on DU about civil liberties as it relates to the Boston Bombings

[Beearewhyain]

Last edited Tue Apr 23, 2013, 01:48 AM - Edit history (1)

GOOD!

I want there to be a vigorous debate. I want there to be disagreement. I want there to be posts that challenge what I think I know and believe. The whole point of a free society is that we debate these things and we hold opposing views up to scrutiny. It is the only way to ensure that we can, in a reasonable manner, protect these freedoms.

What I don't like is the idea that any one of us has a corner on absolute truth. A society and its views ebb and flow and it’s only through vigorous debate that we can hope to perfect these views. So keep going and don’t worry about pissing anybody off with your viewpoint, but do be worried about making a poor argument.

That is all…please continue.

[elleng]

1. Good. Thanks.

There's a lot of confusion about rights of 'accused,' and 'to be accused,' and that's as it should be, because its NOT a simple matter. And many don't take the time to learn the ins and outs of the legal system and rules.

Some public figures have explained the issues well, but most have not.

[Beearewhyain]

10. If it seems a simple matter

then I am not sure they understand. Of course I am not sure I understand either so that is why I am encouraging the debates.

And hi again elleng!

[graham4anything]

2. It's like Harry Reid. Some people like the 60 some don't. I am a big Harry Reid fan.

One has to learn the intricacies of the game and how it's played.
The rules, the law, that is the game.
Good students know it.

[RobertEarl]

3. There should be no debate

The man is a citizen and he has the rights to justice the same as any accused.

Of course, tho, there is the case of Bush/Cheney and they seem to have more rights than anybody ever had. Why are they not in jail? Why have they not been arrested?

[Beearewhyain]

6. I am in agreement

The man is a citizen and should be afforded the same rights as any other accused but there is a bit of debate here as to the manner in which those rights are applied. Do you disagree? In addition, when you bring up BUSHco it kind of muddies the waters. I could then counter that there are many more citizens that did not have proper representation as granted by Gideon. While mentioning the previous administrations many breaches of the law and the lack of accountability is a worthy topic, it does little to illuminate.

That being said I meant for the OP to address the broader issues of the Boston "shelter in place" and police actions as well as the accused's right. As such, thanks for insight and I shall make an edit.

[RobertEarl]

9. Shelter in place

Good advice. Boston had hundreds of men and woman walking around with their fingers on the trigger. Staying away from them and kissing their asses was a wise action by the citizens whose rights were momentarily trashed.

But from the standpoint of a possibly overbearing and authoritarian bent government, it was a grand exercise in seeing just how cowed the public could become.

People's rights are violated all the time. Not all people's and not all the time, but violations happen all the time. And if we sit back and let those rights get violated then we are just asking for more violations. We have the right to not accept any violations of anyone's rights.

[Beearewhyain]

11. Forgive me for being obtuse but

What is a right? How do we define it? Is it always a right and there are never mitigating circumstances? Help me understand.

[RobertEarl]

12. Constitutional rights

And what that constitutes is what the government can NOT do to individuals. It sets limits on what the government can do to any one of us.

Basically, it says the government has to follow a set of guidelines so that it does NOT violate the individual rights set in the constitution.

[Beearewhyain]

13. However, has not the Constitution been interpreted differently over the life of the nation

The Constitution is a breathing, malleable document and we are all subject to the temporal insight that any majority Supreme Court deems appropriate and just. If this is good or bad you can blame Marbury v. Madison but I think it speaks to the debatable nature of immutable rights.

[Deep13]

4. There's no debate.

Ordinary criminal rules apply. Period.

[Beearewhyain]

7. Yes, but as stated above

there is some debate on this board as to how those rights should be applied. It is the nuance of civil liberties that, I think, have the most impact over the long term and determine how those rights are realized.

[rightsideout]

5. I agree. There should be no debate

He's an American Citizen.

And the torture nonsense by idiotic Republicans shouldn't even have been brought up.

[Beearewhyain]

8. I don't think anyone here has advocated torture

and the reason for my post was simply to encourage reasoned discussion on some very important topics as it relates to a very unusual situation. But there has been debates on civil liberties and this situation. For that I am pleased.