Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 371 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

What Should Your Legal Rights Be?

Remember this, every time you hear political pundits asking “What are the Boston suspect’s legal rights?” – referring to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, keep this important fact in mind:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a citizen of the United States of America.

your legal rights

When they ask, “What legal rights should Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have?”, the real question they’re asking is What legal rights should every American citizen have?

If federal government takes legal rights away from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, after all, they only way they can do that is to set a precedent for the revocation of the same legal rights from every other American citizen.

Otherwise, we don’t have legal rights at all – only a security state that we hope won’t turn its gaze on us.

Unless you are willing to have yourself subjected to a particular form of interrogation, don’t ask for that interrogation to be applied to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

9 comments to What Should Your Legal Rights Be?

  • Tom

    It’s become totally obvious that in fact we have no rights whatsoever after this past week. The Constitution is no longer valid, and the provisions of the Bill of Rights against illegal search and seizure, privacy and freedom to pursue your life and happiness (like going outside your house to do yardwork) is only at the whim of the police state we live in. So Carlin was correct in calling them privileges – and they’re being taken away.

    • manning120

      You’re going a bit overboard, but I agree that there are plenty of people with power in our society – Lindsay Graham is the currenty leader — who have no respect for those freedoms. They think that only people like themselves are entitled to such rights.

      The unstated belief of those who want to deprive Tsarnaev of the Miranda warning is that the authorities ought to be able to torture him to get information, or just to show terrorists that they’ll be tortured if we catch them. After all, Tsarnaev, like anyone in this country, should have his rights whether or not they’re stated to him. You or I wouldn’t need to be told we had a right to remain silent, obtain counsel, etc.; we know that already. If Tsarnaev tries to tell interrogators that he chooses to remain silent, have a lawyer, etc., what do you think will happen? He’ll get tortured, if people like Graham have their way. It’s the Dick Cheney doctrine: torture works, but even if it doesn’t, people like Tsarnaev don’t deserve to be treated humanely.

    • Bill

      Tom, it’s the constant hyperbole that blows your arguments every time. “We have no rights whatsoever” Really? Try this test: go to a nation where citizens truly have no rights whatsoever…you have a wide choice, from Myanmar to the PRC to Russia to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and beyond. Then post on the web some comments regarding that country’s state security apparatus akin to the wild accusations you’ve recently leveled here against the FBI. See how long it takes you to get disappeared. Should you be so lucky as to somehow escape detention, return to the U.S. and tell us again that Americans have no rights whatsoever.

      It is essential to debate the important and quite difficult questions regarding whether some rights, such as habeas corpus or Mirandization, should or shouldn’t be denied under some extraordinary circumstances and, if so, how that power should or shouldn’t be regulated to prevent it from being exercised unreasonably. But, with your nonsensical gibbering you turn this debate into mere noise.

  • Tom

    Hey Bill, do you want to wait until all your “rights” are completely gone before you complain – like you’re doing with respect to climate change? Oh, nothing to see here. Everything is fine. i can hardly hear you any more with your head so deep in the sand (notice, i’m being nice about where your head is). Well, you keep falling for the parade of so-called domestic tragedies that reek of set-ups for ulterior motives, i’m not buying it. Don’t compare us to some other country – stick with the one we have and LOOK at all the rights we’ve lost since the 9-11 inside job to get us into a war for oil in Iraq. What about your special president (he used to be mine too) that campaigned on closing Gitmo but has since signed legislation making it legal for him and his death squad of drones to kill any American citizen he deems an enemy combatant anywhere in the world – even here in the states!? How about the possibility of no more posse comitatus – the jack-booted fully armed goons can come right into your house and do whatever they see fit LIKE IN BOSTON – even if they make a mistake and invade the wrong house, you can’t do anything about it and have no recourse. Get used to living in your prison cell Bill. Do what you’re told and always OBEY without question. That’s just what the originators of the Constitution would do, i’m sure. (Oh, wait – we don’t abide by that any more. )

  • Tom

    Obey – a film based on Chris Hedges Death of the Liberal Class. Watch it if you want. Ignore it if you’re comfortable the way things are.

  • Tom

    http://www.correntewire.com/marathon_bombing_counter_narrative_the_brothers_were_patsies

    And what I like about the “patsy” idea is that it explains some otherwise inexplicable facts on the ground:

    Q: Why did the younger brother, who by all accounts was a sweet kid, participate in the action?

    A: The FBI used the older brother as a patsy, and the younger brother trusted him.

    Q: Why did the younger brother wear a conspicuous white hat, when a child of six knows there are cameras everywhere?

    A: Their handlers told them they needed that so they could be tracked.

    Q: Why did the brothers not flee the city or the country?

    A: They thought they were participating in a training exercise.

    Q: Why did the brothers behave like rank amateurs?

    A: Because they were.

    Q: When did the brothers work out they had been set up?

    A: Right before the younger one showed up at the car repair shop and tried to get the Mercedes even though the work on it wasn’t being done. NOTE: His legs were shaking, says the car repair shop guy. Again, not a cool professional.

    Q: Why didn’t the brothers stash a getaway car?

    A: Because that wasn’t part of the training exercise.

  • Tom

    Here’s another look at the explosion with suspicious DRILL warnings right before by authorities:

    http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/04/boston-bombing-did-you-notice-this-video-2450272.html

  • Tom

    Oh, and this:

    http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/

    In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

    See? They keep taking away rights for the illusion of “protection,” when it’s so obvious that the vast homeland security apparatus hasn’t and isn’t protecting us NOW.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>