"We don't know all the facts yet.
My friend, Donald Douglas, over at American Power, has posted this exchange between Dianne Feinstein and Peter King on Fox's Chris Wallace show. Poor old Feinstein just doesn't get it.
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/pathetic-senator-dianne-feinstein-d.html
Senator Feinstein. Rep. King stated right there that 90-some % of American Muslims are upstanding people. The question of guns is legitimate. What kinds of weapons would have sufficed against these two terrorists? Who are you to decide?
2 comments:
In that same conversation, Feinsein felt that the younger Boston bomber should be read his Maranda rights and given the full power of a U.S. citizen and not tried in a military court, which she asserts, would be unconstitutional. Feinstein is not a lawyer and does not pay attention to Supreme Court decisions in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court decided if a U.S. citizen behaves like a terrorist on American soil and uses WMDs, that person can be tried in a military court. This is Constitutional. Obviously, Feinstein does not know her law.
Squid
What's your point Gary? That if everyone in the Boston marathon had been armed, none of his would have happened?
Squid, what on earth are YOU worrked about? You think the evidence against the surviving perp is so weak that reading him his Miranda rights would cause the case to fall apart, and let him walk?
Of course he should be read the statement prescribed in Miranda. That's how everyone being interrogated by the police is treated. Of course it would be unconstitutional to try him in a military court. The thug is not a member of, or operating under orders of, a military organization.
Please cite the U.S. Supreme Court case you are misquoting, so I can look it up and shoot down your fatuous claims.
Post a Comment