First, it was the uber-liberal Ruth O’Brien who suggested that we cannot understand the terrorists motives, not yet. And, called for an internal affairs investigation for the possible use of excessive force during the capture of the terrorists.
Now, it is Glenn Greenwald asking: “How do we know that the Boston Bombings were an act of terrorism? Can an act of violence be called ‘terrorism’ if the motive is unknown?”
What is it with this liberal meme, that we need to understand the terrorist’s motives before we can use the word terrorism? Or, even worse, Islamic Jihad Terrorism?
Glenn is either crazy or a liberal; perhaps both …
Glenn Greenwald: How Do We Know That the Boston Bombings Were an Act of Terrorism? — Can an act of violence be called ‘terrorism’ if the motive is unknown?
Authorities have used a public safety exception to delay reading Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present, a move that has sparked controversy. The Obama administration has been criticized in the past for rolling back Miranda rights after unilaterally expanding the public safety exception in 2010. A group of Republican lawmakers have also called for Tsarnaev to be held as an enemy combatant, but the Obama administration has signaled its intention to try him in civilian court. Constitutional lawyer and Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald joins us to discuss the legal issues surrounding the case. “It’s sort of odd that the debate is Lindsey Graham’s extremist theory [to hold Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant] or rushing to give President Obama credit for what ought to be just reflexive, which is, if you arrest a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil of a crime, before you imprison him, you actually charge him with a crime and give him the right to a lawyer,” Greenwald says. “The fact those are the two sort of extremes being debated, I think, is illustrative of where we’ve come.”
Bottom line …
You observe a pile of horseshit on a trail, do you immediately question the motives of the horse before you can label it horseshit? You observe a liberal who spouts nonsense, do you immediately question their motives before you can determine it is bullshit?