Donald Trump - not a fan of the 6th Amendment

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
20,928
19,361
136
he wants to make America less great

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...e_right_to_counsel_for_ahmad_khan_rahami.html

"In a speech on Monday, Donald Trump expressed his displeasure that Ahmad Khan Rahami, the suspect in the recent New York City bombings, will receive the full legal protections afforded to him by the federal Constitution. Trump specifically zeroed in on the fact that Rahami, a naturalized U.S. citizen, will presumably be provided a lawyer, as the Constitution requires. “He will be represented by an outstanding lawyer,” Trump complained with palpable chagrin. “His case will go through the various court systems for years and in the end, people will forget and his punishment will not be what it once would have been. What a sad situation. We must have speedy but fair trials and we must deliver a just and very harsh punishment to these people.”

What’s especially interesting about this quote isn’t that Trump opposes constitutional rights for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism; he has already made that quite clear. What’s fascinating is that the 6th Amendment’s right to counsel is a bedrock principle of American legal history that actually predates the Bill of Rights itself. In 1770, soon-to-be founding father John Adams agreed to defend the British soldiers accused of committing the Boston Massacre. Decades before the Constitution enshrined the right to an attorney as a cornerstone of due process, Adams believed that even the most unpopular criminal defendants deserved counsel, no matter how ghastly their alleged crimes. Adams, who secured acquittals for most of the accused, later wrote that his defense was “one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country.”

James Madison supported Adams’ view of the right to counsel as a fundamental component of liberty. He included it in his earliest drafts of the Bill of Rights, and it was approved without serious controversy at ratifying conventions. Indeed, the colonies were eager to jettison the old English common law rule barring many criminals from aid of counsel. Even before the ratification of the 6th Amendment, most colonies had notably liberal rules guaranteeing defendants the right to an attorney.

Plenty of other celebrated figures from American history voluntarily defended clients who were just as despised at the time as Rahami is today. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, represented multiple accused murderers of great notoriety; his last murder case occurred just a year before he was elected president. (His client was acquitted.) Allowing defendants—including universally maligned suspects of violent crimes—to mount a strong defense through capable counsel is a foundational aspect of American liberty. You might even say it’s a big part of what made America great in the first place."
 

Roflmouth

Golden Member
Oct 5, 2015
1,059
61
46
Obama could declare him an enemy combatant and waterboard him until he chokes and tells them everything they need to know. It's probably better that he doesn't though. Better for Trump, I mean :)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
If it weren't for the fact that he's almost certainly never even read it, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Trump wipes his ass with toilet paper made from the original Constitution. Seems like his style.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Just yesterday by coincidence I refreshed myself a bit about the Boston Marathon bombings.
The main bomber who survived faced the same scenario, at some pt they debated whether to try him outside the constitution without lawyers.
Ultimately, they decided against it.
He was represented by a whole bunch of lawyers, he STILL got the death sentence.

He is sitting in max security prison, awaiting the death sentence. Yes, there may be appeals, yes this may take many years.

I am asking...what more punishment should there be?

The guy IS, after all, a US citizen. So what is Trump implying? That there should be a special treatment because someone "is brown" or "is Muslim"? This is VERY close to if not identical to what Hitler did - when your race/religion would decide how you'll be treated by the system.

And..who is "these people" who Trumps thinks need special treatment, outside the boundaries of the constitution?
Terrorists? Muslims? Why not apply these new rules to even more people? Say, "non whites? Or "liberals"?

Today, we're still likely agreeing what we mean when we say "terrorist" - but it IS actually a rather fuzzy expression which can be (and has been) used to describe all sorts of people. In a dictatorship, many of those who simply oppose the ruling party may be called "terrorists". Protestors out on the street could be called "terrorists", in some way, say when there is unrest and riots.

You see where this is going...
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
If it weren't for the fact that he's almost certainly never even read it, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Trump wipes his ass with toilet paper made from the original Constitution. Seems like his style.

Nah, he couldn't afford it.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Silly Trump. You're supposed to behave like Obama and (1) administer trial by drone missile strike and (2) not talk about the stuff that #1 entails like due process and whatnot. Out of sight and vaporized terrorists are out of mind terrorists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Just yesterday by coincidence I refreshed myself a bit about the Boston Marathon bombings.
The main bomber who survived faced the same scenario, at some pt they debated whether to try him outside the constitution without lawyers.
Ultimately, they decided against it.
He was represented by a whole bunch of lawyers, he STILL got the death sentence.

He is sitting in max security prison, awaiting the death sentence. Yes, there may be appeals, yes this may take many years.

I am asking...what more punishment should there be?

The guy IS, after all, a US citizen. So what is Trump implying? That there should be a special treatment because someone "is brown" or "is Muslim"? This is VERY close to if not identical to what Hitler did - when your race/religion would decide how you'll be treated by the system.

And..who is "these people" who Trumps thinks need special treatment, outside the boundaries of the constitution?
Terrorists? Muslims? Why not apply these new rules to even more people? Say, "non whites? Or "liberals"?

Today, we're still likely agreeing what we mean when we say "terrorist" - but it IS actually a rather fuzzy expression which can be (and has been) used to describe all sorts of people. In a dictatorship, many of those who simply oppose the ruling party may be called "terrorists". Protestors out on the street could be called "terrorists", in some way, say when there is unrest and riots.

You see where this is going...


Why should it take many years and many appeals when it shouldn't take any longer than six years, one month and 23 days just like this terrorist?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.01/index.html?_s=PM:LAW

timothy-mcveigh-4.jpg


but than again he wasn't brown or Muslim so that pretty much limited the bleeding heart apologists trying to save him.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
I'm not fan of Trump, but unless he said more than what's actually quoted, that's a lazy and fairly stupid interpretation of what he actually said. (That IS quoted.)

He said the guy will get an "Outstanding lawyer". Probably the type that will push for every possible motion and appeal to tie up the case for years, and in the end get the guy the lightest sentence possible.

That's probably true, and it's not the same thing AT ALL as saying he doesn't beleive in 6th Amendment protections. At least not in what's quoted there.

It's a fair point- does anyone really beleive the average poor schlub accused of some minor offence gets the same class of high powered attorney(s) representing them as this asshole will likely get? Do people believe the average schlub automatically gets his case appealed endlessly right up to a slap on the wrist, thanks to the legal manuevering of a lawyer team usually only the well-heeled can afford?

I don't know what could be done about it, but it is kind of a shit situation that high profile douchebags like terrorists are often represented by high powered attorneys, when the average person has little chance of the same. There's probably no legal remedy for it- but one can certainly point out how it's a bit of shit situation.
 

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
Trump wouldn't know the sixth amendment if it bit him on his orange spray-painted-toupee'd ass. I almost wonder sometimes if that's worse or not than if he did know it and deliberately spoke out against it. ...God, we've fallen so far as a nation...
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Show me a liberal trying to save this guy. just 1.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.protests/

About 400 yards away, kept separate by a fence, a larger group of about 120 death penalty opponents sat on straw bales, some holding candles. One of their signs read: "I'm sorry, Tim."

"One thing we know for sure is the death penalty does not bring closure. It's just furthering the cycle of violence," said Jennifer Bishop.

Many people who oppose the death penalty are willing to make an exception for McVeigh, who has shown no remorse for the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh has called the 19 children who died "collateral damage."

But there should be no exception, Eric Sears, 21-year-old student at St. Louis University who came with a group from Chicago, told The Associated Press.

"The death penalty is vengeance. It's not justice," he said.

Candles? A sign reading "I'm sorry, Tim?" Sounds pretty bleeding heart stupid to me. But sure, sure. All 120 and not a single bleeding heart. So you can win. :D
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,560
136
I'm not fan of Trump, but unless he said more than what's actually quoted, that's a lazy and fairly stupid interpretation of what he actually said. (That IS quoted.)

He said the guy will get an "Outstanding lawyer". Probably the type that will push for every possible motion and appeal to tie up the case for years, and in the end get the guy the lightest sentence possible.

That's probably true, and it's not the same thing AT ALL as saying he doesn't beleive in 6th Amendment protections. At least not in what's quoted there.

It's a fair point- does anyone really beleive the average poor schlub accused of some minor offence gets the same class of high powered attorney(s) representing them as this asshole will likely get? Do people believe the average schlub automatically gets his case appealed endlessly right up to a slap on the wrist, thanks to the legal manuevering of a lawyer team usually only the well-heeled can afford?

I don't know what could be done about it, but it is kind of a shit situation that high profile douchebags like terrorists are often represented by high powered attorneys, when the average person has little chance of the same. There's probably no legal remedy for it- but one can certainly point out how it's a bit of shit situation.
You mean as lazy and stupid as saying HRC want to abolish the 2nd amendment?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,560
136
Anyone notice when terrorism comes up Republicans NEVER mention Charlestown?
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
You mean as lazy and stupid as saying HRC want to abolish the 2nd amendment?
Yeah, if she never said she does. But then, I'm guessing you of all people LOVE lazy and stupid misinterpretations as long as you agree with them.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,924
6,738
136

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
It's the lack of self-awareness that kills me. The thing about the Dunning-Kruger effect is, as stated by its discoverers, that an incompetent is not competent to know that s/he is incompetent, because the same skills necessary to produce a correct answer are necessary to know you've got the wrong one.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,578
1,622
136
I wonder if Hair Furor would want to strip this guy or this guy of their rights because they both wanted to blow shit up. Probably not since they were lone wolves... It's clear that Trump doesn't give a shit about the law. I'm betting because he's rich and has gotten away with the shit he's pulled in ripping other people off to maintain his wealth. Trump wants to be the law and a bunch of drooling idiots think this is a great idea.

Most of them are the same damned morons who bitched about Obama being unconstitutional, ruling like a king and cramming shit down their throats.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
he was referring to this new terror man i dont know his name
Actually, he was referring to McVeigh, but maybe you weren't.

Not sure why anyone would be trying to "save this new terror man" ... from what exactly? The death penalty? In this case? He didn't to my knowledge actually kill anyone, though that's a matter of sheer happenstance. What would anyone be saving him from? A stiff jail sentence? Or a slap on the wrist after years of legal shenanigans?
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,498
5,021
136
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.protests/



Candles? A sign reading "I'm sorry, Tim?" Sounds pretty bleeding heart stupid to me. But sure, sure. All 120 and not a single bleeding heart. So you can win. :D

Why didn't you bother to mention the whole point of the article was reporting on a DEATH PENALTY PROTEST, not a "Support McVeigh--he's innocent" demonstration as you have tried to insinuate?

Opponents and supporters of the death penalty began gathering separately after midnight Sunday in two city parks.

"Too many people are putting too much emphasis on Timothy McVeigh," said Peggy Harris, another demonstrator in the pro-death penalty group. "We're here for the 168 people who died and the hundreds more who were injured. We want them to know that we're on their side and not on Timothy McVeigh's side."

"One thing we know for sure is the death penalty does not bring closure. It's just furthering the cycle of violence," said Jennifer Bishop.

Many people who oppose the death penalty are willing to make an exception for McVeigh, who has shown no remorse for the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh has called the 19 children who died "collateral damage."

But there should be no exception, Eric Sears, 21-year-old student at St. Louis University who came with a group from Chicago, told The Associated Press.

"The death penalty is vengeance. It's not justice," he said.

Added for context.

And, hell, even the pro-death penalty person interviewed in the above article stated the protest wasn't about McVeigh, but the viability of the death penalty as a punishment.
 
Last edited:

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
He said the guy will get an "Outstanding lawyer". Probably the type that will push for every possible motion and appeal to tie up the case for years, and in the end get the guy the lightest sentence possible.

That's probably true, and it's not the same thing AT ALL as saying he doesn't beleive in 6th Amendment protections. At least not in what's quoted there.

It's a fair point- does anyone really beleive the average poor schlub accused of some minor offence gets the same class of high powered attorney(s) representing them as this asshole will likely get? Do people believe the average schlub automatically gets his case appealed endlessly right up to a slap on the wrist, thanks to the legal manuevering of a lawyer team usually only the well-heeled can afford?
Among other things that's ignoring that Trump also objected to the suspect being hospitalized as well so the objection seems pretty clearly actually based on Trump objecting to the suspect receiving the opportunity for a fair trial with a lawyer providing a potentially effective means to defend himself.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37414245

Its worth noting that your argument does ignore the fact prosecutors also dedicate allot more talent and effort at major cases generally involving serious offenses. Minor cases tend to get an assistant DA or a someone lower in the food chain at the prosecutor's office getting the case. By contrast a prosecutor can put a huge amount of time on a major really high profile case. Its also worth noting that in some respects the system is even working as designed as its currently set up because the consequences of being convicted of something like murder certainly are ordinarily much more serious than say a shoplifting conviction or something. Actually you can argue the primary problem with the current system is poor defendants don't typically get good enough representation in minor criminal cases which increases the odds of wrongful convictions among other things.

The assumption the "outstanding lawyer" ensures weaker sentencing in high profile cases is also pretty dubious. In practice the only thing it is likely to truly do is possibly help a suspect avoid the death penalty, which I suspect will not even be in play here since the suspect did not manage to actually kill anyone. Usually the high profile murders and similar serious criminals even up convicted and facing allot of jail time (While there was the OJ Simpson murder trial, where the defendant was not reliant on a public defender, that was very much the exception and may have also partially depended on OJ's inherent celebrity prior to the murder.)

Trump's commentary was certainly very problematic and can't be easily explained away.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,476
523
126
Trump says and does many stupid things. No need to make up shit, wait a day or two and he'll give you something to be rightfully upset about. I don't have a problem with what he said. Your rant seems bias and silly to me. Trump said he'd get a lawyer, and have a speedy and fair trial. He said people would probably forget about it by the time it's over, which is probably true. Unless there is more than the supplied quotes I'm not aware of. That article is heavy in bias though, laughably so.

Anyone notice when terrorism comes up Republicans NEVER mention Charlestown?

You could play that game all day long, with various tragedies. Several tragedies are terrorism but the media and officials are afraid to say it. For the record, I'd have no problem him getting executed. You deliberately take a life while being a sound mind, you lose yours. Take more than one and it's even easier decision to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaap