No Miranda?

Question

That&#x27;s kind of B-S isn&#x27;t it?This guy gets a special designation of "enemy-combatant", and gets all of his rights taken away?  Why not afford this guy all of his rights, why even broach the issue of a bad takedown?  They really seem like they are trying to set precedent here.  I for one wish that we had the decency to uphold the Constitution ,  even for this scumfuk.

rick3117 · Answer

That&#x27;s kind of B-S isn&#x27;t it?This guy gets a special designation of "enemy-combatant", and gets all of his rights taken away?  Why not afford this guy all of his rights, why even broach the issue of a bad takedown?  They really seem like they are trying to set precedent here.  I for one wish that we had the decency to uphold the Constitution ,  even for this scumfuk.

dl36 · Answer

did the unibomber get his miranda rights... and he faced justice in the end...

and before the Partisan lemmings start pointing fingers... Lets establish that this seems to be a bipartisan effort

https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/20/us-usa-explosions-boston-shooting-idUSBRE93I0GQ20130420

On Saturday, several Republican lawmakers called on Obama to try Tsarnaev as an "enemy combatant" under terms of war, without entitlement to Miranda rights - usually given by police to suspects before they are interrogated so statements can be admissible in court.

dl36 · Answer

rick the reality is that so called "constitutionalists" will only call on it and believe in it when it pushes their own agenda... and will turn around and stomp on it if it threatens their agenda that they want dictated on american citizens...

the consitution is becoming more and more religious mythology like the bible where people pick and choose passages to support their agenda...

Im wondering at what point we get a king james version of the constitution where the whole thing get rewritten highlighting certain parts and completely omitting others...

rick3117 · Answer

This is breaches the exact same sentiment that Rand Paul was talking about.

This will be a good test to see if Rand will say anything about this takedown, because it is such a "rah rah 'Murica" moment.

I think that Due Process of Law is needed here. I completely disagree with the enemy combatant designation, and think that it sets a horrible precedent.

rick3117 · Answer

I mean, the Miranda rights is one thing, Which I disagree with, but I really disagree with the open designation of "enemy combatant" resulting in a complete revocation of Constitutional rights, without due process of law.

I think if you want to strip him of his constitutional rights, we have a trial, where he is designated an enemy combatant, then try him for his crimes in a different court if that is what is needed.

dl36 · Answer

especially concerning this is a citizen... just like you or me...

I could see if it was an illegal immigrant, exchange student, someone on a work visa etc...

Im somewhat interested in rand, but really as whole... I supported Ron for his ability to stick to his values and principles regardless of what GOP/neo"cons"/fox"news" etc. propaganda was being dictated...

I also agree with scary precedents... but the unibomber was pre-patriot act, war on terror against the axis of evil era where people believed that they would only be safe if they allowed Big Intrusive government to rule us all...

so based on 21st century history it does not surprise me that you have both obama and GOPs going through with this...

dl36 · Answer

rick, I agree with you... but I fear that we are the minority in this issue...what the 21st history shows is that people would prefer the "enemy combatant" label and willingly give up their constitutional rights if it makes them feel safer...I have a friend who in engaged in a benefit run days after the bombing to support the victims... but he was saying that it was also to show the terrorists that they are not winning and not going to break us...but when you see people willingly want this precedent, it looks to me like the terrorists are winning...

ClubDirt · Answer

remember how we said the constitution is a meaningless document. our government could give a garbage about the government. any provision in the constitution is only as good as the people who interpret it and those people are our government.

cd329 · Answer

Some here have said we dont need guns in the country, because our govt would never force feed a dictatorship on all of us

Take away our guns and watch how fast our govt become more agressive towards the citizens

TheGoldenGoose · Answer

You need to understand the process of law.

No Miranda Rights because the government is invoking a "public safety exception". The public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger.

The public safety exception permits law enforcement officials to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation of a suspect and allows the government to introduce the statement as evidence in court.

Now, the public safety exception expires 48 hours after the arrest. At that time, the government (yes, ultimately Obama) will decide if the suspect is to be tried in US Federal Court, or be tried as an "enemy combatant".

This would deny him a government appointed attorney and other legal rights under the “Law of War”. Might be tough to do in this circumstance because you have to prove he was, in fact, conspiring with an organization or another government against the United States Government.

We should have an official government decision by Monday morning. Until then, the MSM will be having a feast with Left against Right, Democrats against Republicans.

Does anybody really think this outcome hasn't already been decided???

ClubDirt · Answer

[Quote: Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose]  You need to understand the process of law.No Miranda Rights because the  government is invoking a "public safety exception".  The public safety exception is triggered when police  officers have an &#xD;&#xA;objectively reasonable need to protect the police or  the public from &#xD;&#xA;immediate danger.&#xD;&#xA;&#x9;&#x9;&#x9;&#x9;&#x9;&#x9;The public safety exception permits law enforcement  officials to engage&#xD;&#xA; in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation of a  suspect and &#xD;&#xA;allows the government to introduce the statement as  evidence in court.Now, the public safety exception expires 48 hours after the arrest.  At that time, the government (yes, ultimately Obama) will decide if the suspect is to be tried in US Federal Court, or be tried as an "enemy combatant".This would deny him a government appointed attorney and other legal &#xD;&#xA;rights under the &#x201C;Law of War&#x201D;.  Might be tough to do in this &#xD;&#xA;circumstance because you have to prove he was, in fact, conspiring with &#xD;&#xA;an organization or another government against the United States &#xD;&#xA;Government.We should have an official government decision by Monday morning.  Until then, the MSM will be having a feast with Left against Right, Democrats against Republicans.Does anybody really think this outcome hasn&#x27;t already been decided???&#xD;&#xA;    [/Quote]in other words, the government can dispense with miranda just about any time they want in cases of violence or threats of violence.someone proposes gun restrictions, the second amendment is sacred an cannot be limited. politicians will wear us out with constitution talk. i.e. nonsensethe government wants to find an alleged criminal and get a statement from him, the fourth and fifth amendments don&#x27;t mean garbage.the constitution = government toilet paper

MoneySRH · Answer

When i saw the thread title, i was thinking, why in the hell would anyone care if this guy was read his Miranda rights. I felt screw the guy, off with his head, i know he's guilty, to hell with his rights, after what he did.

After reading what you said rick, i guess you have to give Miranda rights to even terrorists, even though we know they are guilty. I hate it, i want him to suffer, but we have to stand by the American way, even though we don't want to.

Its hard to think critically, when all i want to do is snap on the guy.

ClubDirt · Answer

it&#x27;s really not a big deal, the cop reads the form very quickly, tells the guy to sign here, half the time they suspect isn&#x27;t even listening and then the cops are off and running.

speak2truth · Answer

The blight that are the &#x27;Miranda rights&#x27; didn&#x27;t even exist until 1966 and are an abhorrence.

UberDog · Answer

Even if they read him his Miranda rights, he couldn&#x27;t respond. He&#x27;s drugged, intubated and possibly wounded by gunfire in the neck/throat area. He&#x27;s lucky the police didn&#x27;t finish him off in the boat.

MoneySRH · Answer

Trust me, the first time i was arrested, my eyes and ears were wide open, but i do understand your point, clubdirt...Miranda rights are an abhorrence? It&#x27;s the American way and a part of due process. How is telling someone their rights an abhorrence? I take it you&#x27;ve never been in cold steel hand cuffs before.The problem in this situation... is that he&#x27;s a terrorist. Telling a terrorist that he has the right to remain silent, stops the authorities for asking him about other terrorists, and other potential attacks on innocent Americans.This is quite a conundrum, after thinking about it more...

UberDog · Answer

To answer Rick&#x27;s question directly, it isn&#x27;t B-S given the circumstances. This was not an ordinary crime. Whether the suspect is a naturalized citizen or not, the bombings were part of a foreign inspired, if not foreign led, attack on American soil.

cant_win_em_all · Answer

I fully agree. People constantly forget that there are people who want to kill Americans anyway possible. Those people who act upon it should be stripted of all rights.

depeche2 · Answer

enemy combatant and public safety exception are not the same thing.

djbrow · Answer

As it is, no initial statements were made.

Statements that are currently being made would be excluded even if Miranda was provided (because of his current medical condition, they could not be considered voluntary). Any decent attorney is going to succesfully have them excluded.

So, its obvious that current interrogation is not for the purpose of obtaining incriminating evidence, but rather solely on the grounds of public safety exceptions.

Since the only remedy for violation of Miranda or obtaining involuntary statements is exclusion, we can legitmately argue that both his rights and the safety concerns for the public are simultaneously being addressed.

kaponofor3 · Answer

Without reading the thread, I think this is a bad strategic decision by the DOJ. If the courts disagree with the wide expanse and scope of their interpretation of the public safety exception, there goes the admissibility of any evidence (in general, with exceptions) that is gained as a result of those statements made before the Miranda warnings were given.

It just seems too risky to me to justify the position.

ClubDirt · Answer

Statements that are currently being made would be excluded even if Miranda was provided (because of his current medical condition, they could not be considered voluntary). Any decent attorney is going to successfully have them excluded.

are you saying statements taken by the police of people in poor medical condition and drugged up in the hospital are not permitted to be used against the defendant? i've never seen such a thing. are you saying the constitution is applicable where you live? what do rightwingers think of this?

rick3117 · Answer

I guess the whole point is that you never have to defend the 1st amendment for popular speech, you have to defend it for language that you find reprehensible.

The same could stand for this.

I believe he has the same God given rights that I do, or anyone on this board does. I am not fighting for him, but his rights.

djbrow · Answer

&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the general rules of voluntariness even apply in the 11th Circuit.

djbrow · Answer

[Quote: Originally Posted by rick3117] I guess the whole point is that you never have to defend the 1st amendment for popular speech,  you have to defend it for language that you find reprehensible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same could stand for this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe he has the same God given rights that I do, or anyone on this board does.  I am not fighting for him,  but his rights.  &#xD;&#xA;[/Quote]&#xD;&#xA;What specific rights are being violated?&#xD;&#xA;Remember, as I said earlier, that Miranda violations are solely an exclusionary based remedy.

No Miranda?

Hot Forum Topics