Is Miranda rights for every U.S. citizen? [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

04-20-2013, 11:27 AM

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 11:34 AM

If they have you dead to rights, on camera leaving a bomb on the ground, and you're a terrorist, I have no problem with miranda being waived. There's already enough evidence to convict either one of them 50x over, all that's left now is a trial, but more importantly, ensuring that no one else is involved with them.

Marcus Aurelius

04-20-2013, 11:35 AM

Any bets on who the firs celebrity to take the bombers side will be???

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 11:36 AM

Wanted to add, I find it odd that a few short days after terror attacks, and a day after a manhunt where they killed a police officer and tried to kill me, one blew himself up, and the other tried to end it with a bang - and the police went out of their way to make sure they took him alive - it seems like your primary concern is whether the living individual has his rights.

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 12:10 PM

Also - don't forget they are just delaying the miranda, not cutting it out. He'll get his due process, miranda and day in court. Nothing between the arrest and the ultimate miranda will likely be brought into court anyway. Once the public is known to be safe, then they'll go ahead and use miranda. The time between is simply a high level interrogation to protect the public from any imminent danger. All seems fair to me.

Marcus Aurelius

04-20-2013, 12:23 PM

Also - don't forget they are just delaying the miranda, not cutting it out. He'll get his due process, miranda and day in court. Nothing between the arrest and the ultimate miranda will likely be brought into court anyway. Once the public is known to be safe, then they'll go ahead and use miranda. The time between is simply a high level interrogation to protect the public from any imminent danger. All seems fair to me.

Possibly. But the SC 'exception' allows it to be used in court, where Miranda would prevent it.

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 12:31 PM

Possibly. But the SC 'exception' allows it to be used in court, where Miranda would prevent it.

Agreed. But he's doomed in court already with all of the angles covered on video and camera. I wouldn't care if they decided to take out the exception, as the primary objective here is to place public safety. I don't believe this is about usurping the law to get incriminating information from him, but rather assuring that the public at large isn't in danger, before an attorney tells him to zip it. The safety of the Boston area in this case trumps his quick access to an attorney.

taft2012

04-20-2013, 12:33 PM

Despite television myths to the contrary, Miranda does not have to be given unless questioning takes place.

Furthermore, there is a public safety exception, which discontinues once questioning goes into the realm of the actual crime itself.

Let the liberal hand-wringing over criminals' rights begin.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

ORIGIN OF THE RULE
The origin of the public safety exception to Miranda, the case of New York v. Quarles, began in the early morning hours of September 11, 1980. While on routine patrol in Queens, New York, two New York City police officers were approached by a young woman who told them that she had just been raped. She described the assailant as a black male, approximately 6 feet tall, wearing a leather jacket with "Big Ben" printed in yellow letters on the back. The woman told the officers that the man had just entered a nearby supermarket and that he was carrying a gun.
The officers drove to the supermarket, and one entered the store while the other radioed for assistance. A man matching the description was near a checkout counter, but upon seeing the officer, ran to the back of the store. The officer pursued the subject, but lost sight of him for several seconds as the individual turned a corner at the end of an aisle. Upon finding the subject, the officer ordered him to stop and to put his hands over his head. As backup personnel arrived, the officer frisked the man and discovered he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. After handcuffing him, the officer asked where the gun was. The man gestured toward empty milk cartons and said, "The gun is over there." The officer found and removed a loaded handgun from a carton, formally placed the man under arrest, and then read the Miranda rights to him. The man waived his rights and answered questions about the ownership of the gun and where it was purchased.7
The state of New York charged the man, identified as Benjamin Quarles, for criminal possession of a weapon.8 The trial court excluded the statement "The gun is over there," as well as the handgun, on the grounds that the officer did not give Quarles the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona. 9 After an appellate court affirmed the decision, the case was appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.
The New York Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision by a 4 to 3 vote.10 According to the New York Court of Appeals, because Quarles responded "to the police interrogation while he was in custody, [and] before he had been given the preinterrogation warnings…," the lower courts properly suppressed the statement and the gun.11 The court refused to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda and noted that even if there were such an exception, there was "no evidence in the record before us that there were exigent circumstances posing a risk to the public safety or that the police interrogation was prompted by such concern."12 In dissent, Judge Watchler believed that there was a public safety exception to Miranda and that the facts presented such a situation. Judge Watchler noted that "Miranda was never intended to enable a criminal defendant to thwart official attempts to protect the general public against an imminent, immediate and grave risk of serious physical harm reasonably perceived."13 He also believed there was "a very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from a weapon being at large."14 The state of New York appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

he Supreme Court ruled on these facts that a public safety exception to Miranda existed. To understand how the Court reached this conclusion and the implications of this exception on the admissibility of the statement and the handgun, a consideration of a summary of the steps used by the Court is important.
The first step toward this conclusion was a discussion by the Court of the relationship between the Miranda requirements and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."15 The Fifth Amendment "does not prohibit all incriminating admissions," only those that are "officially coerced selfaccusations…." 16 In Miranda, the Supreme Court "for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police."17 Thus, Miranda created a presumption that "interrogation in custodial circumstances is inherently coercive" and that statements obtained under those circumstances "are inadmissible unless the subject is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights."18 Importantly, the Court noted that Miranda warnings were not required by the Constitution, but were prophylactic measures designed to provide protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. 19
After providing this explanation of the relationship between the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, the Court explained that Quarles did not claim that his statements were "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist."20 Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed. 21 And, in this regard, the Court explained that the failure to administer Miranda warnings does not, standing alone, make a confession involuntary in violation of the Constitution. 22

The Supreme Court then proceeded to determine whether the Miranda rule was implicated in this case and agreed with the New York Court of Appeals that it was. The Court agreed with the New York courts that Quarles was in custody. As the Court noted, "Quarles was surrounded by at least four police officers and was handcuffed when the questioning at issue took place."23 Therefore, on the facts of the case, the Court found that the Miranda decision was clearly implicated. The Court then referred to the determination by the New York courts that there was nothing in the record indicating that any of the police officers were concerned with their safety when they questioned Quarles. The Supreme Court noted that the New York Court of Appeals did not address the issue of whether there was an exception to Miranda in cases that involve a danger to the public "because the lower courts in New York made no factual determination that the police had acted with that motive."24
The Supreme Court chose to address whether a public safety exception to Miranda should exist. In this regard, the Court held that: "there is a 'public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved."25 Thus, according to the Court, without regard to the actual motivation of the individual officers, Miranda need not be strictly followed in situations "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."26
The Court then applied the facts to the situation confronting them when Quarles was arrested. In the course of arresting Quarles, it became apparent that Quarles had removed the handgun and discarded it within the store. While the location of the handgun remained undetermined, it posed a danger to public safety.27 In this case, the officer needed an answer to the question about the location of the gun to ensure that its concealment in a public location would not endanger the public. The immediate questioning of Quarles was directed specifically at resolving this emergency. Since the questioning of Quarles was prompted by concern for public safety, the officers were not required to provide Miranda warnings to Quarles first. Therefore, the statement made by Quarles about the location of the handgun was admissible.28 In addition, because the Court found there was no violation of Miranda, the handgun also was admissible. The Court declined to address whether the handgun would have been suppressed if the statements were found to be inadmissible.29
FRAMEWORK OF THE EXCEPTION
The Quarles case provides a framework that police officers can use to assess a particular situation, determine whether the exception is available, and ensure that their questioning remains within the scope of the rule. This framework includes the presence of a public safety concern, limited questioning, and voluntariness.
Public Safety Concern
According to the Supreme Court, the public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger. Because the standard is objective, the availability of the exception does not depend on subjective motivation of the officers. Legitimate concerns for officer safety or public safety prompting unwarned custodial questioning arise in a variety of contexts. A common factor that can be gleaned from the courts addressing this issue is the prior knowledge or awareness of specific facts or circumstances that give rise to the imminent safety concern that prompted the questioning.

For example, in U.S. v. Talley, police officers executing a federalarrest warrant at a residence heard sounds indicating that a number of unexpected people were inside the home.30 The officers returned to their vehicles to get their bulletproof vests and then returned to the front door. After the defendant and another individual were secured by a police officer just inside the residence, the officer noticed other people inside the house who had not complied with the demand to come outside. The officer entered further into the residence to gain control of the unsecured subjects and tripped over a trash can that contained bullets and a magazine for a semiautomatic pistol. The officer returned to the two subjects and asked, "Where is the gun?" The defendant told the officer that the gun was inside a vacuum cleaner, from where it was retrieved. The defendant sought to suppress the gun, claiming the officer did not provide him his Miranda warnings first. The district court suppressed the defendant's statement, finding a violation of Miranda. The circuit court reversed and upheld the admissibility of the statement. The court stressed the context of the arrest in finding that the public safety exception was applicable. The court stated that "[o]nce Officer Rush had seen the magazine, he had reason to believe a gun was nearby and was justified, under Quarles, in asking his question prior to administering a Miranda warning."31
In U.S. v. Jones, members of a fugitive task force arrested Phillip Jones for a homicide he committed with a handgun on June 27, 2006.32 Members of the task force met on August 10, 2006, the day of the arrest, and were briefed about the nature of the homicide, the possibility that Jones may have two weapons, and that he had two previous convictions for gun and drug offenses. After going to search for Jones in a dangerous high-crime area in northeast Washington, D.C., Deputy U.S. Marshal Cyphers made eye contact with Jones, who immediately fled. The marshal pursued and caught Jones in a partially lit stairwell of an apartment building. At some point during the chase, Cyphers heard a gunshot fired. Within 30 seconds of arresting Jones and before providing the Miranda warnings, Cyphers asked if Jones had anything on him. Jones replied, "I have a burner in my waistband."33 Jones sought to suppress his statement. The circuit court had little difficulty in determining that "Cypher's questions fell squarely within the public safety exception."34 The circuit court stressed the information that Deputy U.S. Marshal Cyphers knew about Jones before making the arrest, as well as the circumstances surrounding the chase and arrest, concluding that the question was prompted by a concern for public safety.
In each of the two cases above, information that came to the attention of the law enforcement officers concerning an immediate threat to safety prompted the officers to ask questions directed at neutralizing the danger. In both cases, the reviewing courts agreed with the officers that the information prompted a public safety concern.

Limited Questioning
The Quarles Court made clear that only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of the public" were permitted under the public safety exception.35 In U.S. v. Khalil, New York City police officers raided an apartment in Brooklyn after they received information that Khalil and Abu Mezer had bombs in their apartment and were planning to detonate them.36During the raid, both men were shot and wounded as one of them grabbed the gun of a police officer and the other crawled toward a black bag believed to contain a bomb. When the officers looked inside the black bag, they saw pipe bombs and observed that a switch on one bomb was flipped.
Officers went to the hospital to question Abu Mezer about the bombs. They asked Abu Mezer "how many bombs there were, how many switches were on each bomb, which wires should be cut to disarm the bombs, and whether there were any timers."37 Abu Mezer answered each question and also was asked whether he planned to kill himself in the explosion. He responded by saying, "Poof."38
Abu Mezer sought to suppress each of his statements, but the trial court permitted them, ruling that they fell within the public safety exception. On appeal, Abu Mezer only challenged the admissibility of the last question, whether he intended to kill himself when detonating the bombs. He claimed the question was unrelated to public safety. The circuit court disagreed and noted "Abu Mezer's vision as to whether or not he would survive his attempt to detonate the bomb had the potential for shedding light on the bomb's stability."39
A common theme throughout cases such as this is the importance of limiting the interrogation of a subject to questions directed at eliminating the emergency. Following Quarles, at least two federal circuit courts of appeals have addressed the issue of the effect of an invocation of a right on the exception. In U.S. v. De- Santis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the public safety exception applies even after the invocation of counsel.40 According to the court: "The same consideration that allows the police to dispense with providing Miranda warnings in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel."41
In U.S. v. Mobley, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the public safety exception applied even when the subject had invoked his right to counsel.42 The court recognized that a threat to public safety still may exist even after Miranda rights are provided and invoked.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/image/miranda_8.jpgVoluntariness
Voluntariness is the linchpin of the admissibility of any statement obtained as a result of government conduct.43Thus, statements obtained by the government under the public safety exception cannot be coerced or obtained through tactics that violate fundamental notions of due process.44 Here, it is worth mentioning that prior to the Miranda decision, the only test used to determine the admissibility of statements in federal court was whether the statement was voluntarily made within the requirements of the due process clause.45 This test requires that a court review the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the subject's will was overborne by police conduct. If a court finds that the questioning of a subject, even in the presence of a situation involving public safety, violated due process standards, the statement will be suppressed.46
In the Khalil case, Abu Mezer also argued that the statements he made to police officers while he was in the hospital should be suppressed because they were not voluntary. Testimony from the interviewing agent indicated that although Abu Mezer was in pain, "he was alert, seemed to understand the questions, and gave responsive answers."47 Testimony from the surgeon indicated that Abu Mezer "was alert and had no difficulty understanding her explanation of the surgical procedure he would undergo."48 The district court found that under the totality of the circumstances, Abu Mezer's statements were voluntary, and the court of appeals upheld this determination.
Police officers must be vigilant to ensure that the questioning and other actions of the police, even if prompted by an emergency situation involving public safety, permits subjects to exercise their free will when deciding to answer questions. This exception does not permit police officers to compel a statement from a subject. It simply permits them to question a subject before providing any Miranda warnings to resolve an imminent public safety concern.
CONCLUSION
The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda.

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 12:36 PM

I agree with both bolded portions below. The first is what I said all along, public safety - but I do agree with the second, that it shouldn't be a tool to build a case.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s announcement that it would question the Boston Marathon bombing suspect for a period without first reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present has revived a constitutionally charged debate over the handling of terrorism cases in the criminal justice system.

The administration’s effort to stretch a gap in the Miranda rule for questioning about immediate threats to public safety has alarmed advocates of individual rights.

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it would be acceptable for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ask the suspect, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, a naturalized American citizen, about “imminent” threats, like whether other bombs are hidden around Boston. But he said that once the F.B.I. gets into broader questioning, it must not “cut corners.”

Mr. Tsarnaev remained hospitalized on Saturday for treatment of injuries sustained when he was captured by the police on Friday night, and it was not clear whether he had been questioned.

“The public safety exception to Miranda should be a narrow and limited one, and it would be wholly inappropriate and unconstitutional to use it to create the case against the suspect,” Mr. Romero said. “The public safety exception would be meaningless if interrogations are given an open-ended time horizon.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/a-debate-over-delaying-suspects-miranda-rights.html

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 12:37 PM

There ya go, right from the SCOTUS:

Public Safety Concern
According to the Supreme Court, the public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger. Because the standard is objective, the availability of the exception does not depend on subjective motivation of the officers. Legitimate concerns for officer safety or public safety prompting unwarned custodial questioning arise in a variety of contexts. A common factor that can be gleaned from the courts addressing this issue is the prior knowledge or awareness of specific facts or circumstances that give rise to the imminent safety concern that prompted the questioning.

taft2012

04-20-2013, 12:40 PM

The first is what I said all along, public safety - but I do agree with the second, that it shouldn't be a tool to build a case.

l (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/a-debate-over-delaying-suspects-miranda-rights.html)

It was established long ago that it can not be.

Nothing new, just liberal and pothead conservative hand-wringing to protect criminals. Same old same old.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-20-2013, 12:42 PM

Any bets on who the firs celebrity to take the bombers side will be???

The biggest and dumbest piece of shat alive--Sean Penn.

revelarts

04-20-2013, 12:45 PM

Wanted to add, I find it odd that a few short days after terror attacks, and a day after a manhunt where they killed a police officer and tried to kill me, one blew himself up, and the other tried to end it with a bang - and the police went out of their way to make sure they took him alive - it seems like your primary concern is whether the living individual has his rights.

My ONLY concern Jim.
you know better. I don't want anyone hurt or killed.
But your comment has made me realize something . I've often wondered why people are so so outraged when some says . even killer X needs to have his rights.

All they hear is sympathy for Killer X.
Not the fact that It's a really cry that says, ' if he get's his rights, i know mine are safe too.'
It's not about Killer X. it's about my brothers next traffic stop. My cousin trying to get into her house without her keys. it's about Jim being pulled over with wicked POT.

That's right I do want killer X to get all of his rights read and not be shot because someone could accuse ME of some evil BS that i didn't do and I'd like to have the confidence that if that happens some vengeful cop will show restraint and some FBI interrogator will not try to torture "the truth" out of me.

Killer X is mainly a symbol. Not so much someone I'm crying for sympathy or lenience for.

i know you like to assume that most police and officials don't cross the line that much, and it's acceptable TO YOU if they do where it seems fit TO YOU.
My problem is that so many people are ready to agree on moving the whole freaking line further and further back each and every time there's a hard case.

Yes i want his rights read to him and i want him to have a lawyer. and if/since he's guilty i want to get the full punishment.
If others want to view that as ONLY being concerned with Bomber kids life, well i wish they could step back and get the bigger picture.

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 12:48 PM

Yes i want his rights read to him and i want him to have a lawyer. and if/since he's guilty i want to get the full punishment.
If others want to view that as ONLY being concerned with Bomber kids life, well i wish they could step back and get the bigger picture.

And he'll have it read to him, and get a lawyer AFTER they determine that there is no threat still remaining. Like stated in prior posts, this isn't a fact finding mission for building a case, but high level interrogators to ensure there is no threat remaining in Boston.

revelarts

04-20-2013, 12:52 PM

And he'll have it read to him, and get a lawyer AFTER they determine that there is no threat still remaining. Like stated in prior posts, this isn't a fact finding mission for building a case, but high level interrogators to ensure there is no threat remaining in Boston.
the goal is legit.
But assuming that you can do one an not effect the other is a not true.

If he has anything to say about other plots, and he cooperates, that's more evidence against him and a bargaining chip for his case. would you bargain for it.
give any lesser punishments if he turns over others tht are about to do something else?
Or would you insist on have both the death penalty and the info?

taft2012

04-20-2013, 02:09 PM

Give it up already.

You don't want a big welfare state.... but you will take positions that will create an even bigger welfare state.

You don't want killers going free ... but you'll do whatever you can to free them.

You're Rachel Maddow with a fat spliff hanging out of your lips.

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 02:09 PM

the goal is legit.
But assuming that you can do one an not effect the other is a not true.

If he has anything to say about other plots, and he cooperates, that's more evidence against him and a bargaining chip for his case. would you bargain for it.
give any lesser punishments if he turns over others tht are about to do something else?
Or would you insist on have both the death penalty and the info?

The info is a matter of state security. I think he'll be getting the death penalty, or I hope so, regardless of what he does at this point. Again, this isn't a fact finding mission. If they found out about 1 more attack, and a judge stated it couldn't be used against him in a court of law, I would be cool with that. They would then hopefully be able to thwart another attack, and federally prosecute this scumbag for the Marathon attack alone and win easily.

aboutime

04-20-2013, 03:44 PM

The biggest and dumbest piece of shat alive--Sean Penn.

Holder, Obama, Napalitano. Anyone from Hollyweird doesn't count...unless they contribute BIG BUCKS to Obama.

Let's all get real here. We already know from past experience. That 19 year old terrorist will be granted the same rights, luxuries, and freedoms as the Hunger strikers down in GITMO.
Obama and Holder do not want, and will refuse to treat him like a Terrorist because WE ALL KNOW...Obama and Holder DO NOT USE THOSE WORDS.
Therefore. A TRIAL, IN A U.S. COURT will take place.
Problem is. IF he gets a trial of his PEERS..according to the Constitution.
Where will Holder, and Obama find 12 more TERRORISTS??

DragonStryk72

04-21-2013, 03:11 AM

DragonStryk72

04-21-2013, 03:13 AM

Holder, Obama, Napalitano. Anyone from Hollyweird doesn't count...unless they contribute BIG BUCKS to Obama.

Let's all get real here. We already know from past experience. That 19 year old terrorist will be granted the same rights, luxuries, and freedoms as the Hunger strikers down in GITMO.
Obama and Holder do not want, and will refuse to treat him like a Terrorist because WE ALL KNOW...Obama and Holder DO NOT USE THOSE WORDS.
Therefore. A TRIAL, IN A U.S. COURT will take place.
Problem is. IF he gets a trial of his PEERS..according to the Constitution.
Where will Holder, and Obama find 12 more TERRORISTS??

Actually, his jury will be made up of people form Boston.... Oh yeah, that trial's gonna go SO well for him. He's busted, plain and simple.

red states rule

04-21-2013, 05:08 AM

Thanks to libs we have update Miranda Rights

You have the right to remain silent

You have the right to an attorney

You have the right to cable TV

You have the right to sing the blues

You have the right to take out food

You have the right to gym

You have the right to a law library

and all of these right will be financed by the taxpayers. So live it up

I do hope I have not missed any of the "rights" these criminals have

taft2012

04-21-2013, 09:20 AM

Nope, it is wrong. He's a US Citizen, and basically, everyone who is in favor of waiving miranda rights is a coward who believes we are too weak and incompetent to successfully bring justice to someone that we have dead to rights.

His actions do not require us to dispose of our character, or honor. It's in tough times like these that character is truly revealed, it's presence, and it's lack. We can convict this person, and have justice be done without abandoning integrity for lynch mob mentality.

SMH.

This just accepts the premise that Miranda was correctly decided in the first place. The notion that the police are required to read your rights to you is a patent absurdity. The court might as well have mandated a night school course on the US Constitution, for all the good Miranda does.

Just another example of the total liberal disconnect between their actions and reality.

revelarts

04-21-2013, 09:43 AM

the below videos are a former defense attorney and a police officer talking about the 5th amendment, Miranda, .
the Cop says, people LIKE TO TALK even though they are given their rights . "They like to tell their story" And they use various legal techniques to try to get folks to talk.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/08fZQWjDVKE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i8z7NC5sgik?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

taft2012

04-21-2013, 09:47 AM

the below videos are a former defense attorney and a police officer talking about the 5th amendment, Miranda, .
the Cop says, people LIKE TO TALK even though they are given their rights . "They like to tell their story" And they use various legal techniques to try to get folks to talk.

Which does not make a case that Miranda was correctly decided.

Even with Miranda read, criminals often like to think they're smarter than the police.

Missileman

04-21-2013, 10:20 AM

criminals often like to think they're smarter than the police.

I know at least one cop responsible for that assumption. :poke:

taft2012

04-21-2013, 10:37 AM

I know at least one cop responsible for that assumption. :poke:

Let me put your minds at ease; I can't conceive of a scenario where one of you gets collared for toting around a duffelbag full of bud, that would allow the police to question you without Miranda under the public safety exception.

What's amazing here is that the liberals and potheads conservatives were popping champagne corks when the USSC ruled on Miranda and put protections in place for criminals. To them, that was perfectly legitimate.

Then the court comes back 20 years later and says "Hey, maybe we went a bit too far there, so we're pulling back a bit."

Oh, no. That's bad.

And now they use this terrorist piece of shit to lament the loss of criminal protections.

They're all liberal loonies, in spite of whatever conservative buzzwords the pothead conservatives toss around to confound you.

jimnyc

04-21-2013, 10:49 AM

Rev, maybe we're just wired differently. You just don't come off as overly concerned about the terrorists, what they did, the victims, the possibility of more bombs or terrorists.... and you go full speed ahead a few short days after the attacks to worry about the rights of these cockroaches.

Anyway, call it what you like. The SC passed off on it, so doesn't their ruling now stand as law and affirm the "right" of those in charge to interrogate him? Maybe they can change it someday if enough complain, but the actions right now are in line with the SC ruling.

taft2012

04-21-2013, 10:56 AM

Rev, maybe we're just wired differently. You just don't come off as overly concerned about the terrorists, what they did, the victims, the possibility of more bombs or terrorists.... and you go full speed ahead a few short days after the attacks to worry about the rights of these cockroaches.

Anyway, call it what you like. The SC passed off on it, so doesn't their ruling now stand as law and affirm the "right" of those in charge to interrogate him? Maybe they can change it someday if enough complain, but the actions right now are in line with the SC ruling.

What's making my head a'splode is that this whole discussion seems to take the premise that Miranda is part of the US Constitution, and that the public safety exception is an erroneous Supreme Court ruling.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

That's the discussion premise the liberal media and pothead conservatives want us to work from.

Miranda *ITSELF* was the dingbat Supreme Court ruling.

The public safety exception was an attempt to rein in some of the liberal lunacy.

Missileman

04-21-2013, 11:10 AM

Rev, maybe we're just wired differently. You just don't come off as overly concerned about the terrorists, what they did, the victims, the possibility of more bombs or terrorists.... and you go full speed ahead a few short days after the attacks to worry about the rights of these cockroaches.

Anyway, call it what you like. The SC passed off on it, so doesn't their ruling now stand as law and affirm the "right" of those in charge to interrogate him? Maybe they can change it someday if enough complain, but the actions right now are in line with the SC ruling.

I get where Rev is coming from, kinda. If we allow exceptions to due process, it sets precedent that might come back and bite down the road. I do however think that any American, natural-born or naturalized who commits an offense like this should be immediately stripped of citizenship and tried as a terrorist and not a criminal. There should be a special set of rights for terrorists including, but not limited to:

You have the right to tell us everything we want to know.

You have the right to be water-boarded.

You have the right to bread and water.

You have the right to a cool, unfurnished cement cell.

You have the right to a speedy execution.

I'm sure there are a few others.

taft2012

04-21-2013, 11:17 AM

I get where Rev is coming from, kinda. If we allow exceptions to due process, it sets precedent that might come back and bite down the road. I do however think that any American, natural-born or naturalized who commits an offense like this should be immediately stripped of citizenship and tried as a terrorist and not a criminal. There should be a special set of rights for terrorists including, but not limited to:

You have the right to tell us everything we want to know.

You have the right to be water-boarded.

You have the right to bread and water.

You have the right to a cool, unfurnished cement cell.

You have the right to a speedy execution.

I'm sure there are a few others.

Strawman. I don't see anybody arguing any of this.

jimnyc

04-21-2013, 11:43 AM

I get where Rev is coming from, kinda. If we allow exceptions to due process, it sets precedent that might come back and bite down the road. I do however think that any American, natural-born or naturalized who commits an offense like this should be immediately stripped of citizenship and tried as a terrorist and not a criminal. There should be a special set of rights for terrorists including, but not limited to:

You have the right to tell us everything we want to know.

You have the right to be water-boarded.

You have the right to bread and water.

You have the right to a cool, unfurnished cement cell.

You have the right to a speedy execution.

I'm sure there are a few others.

I'm leaning towards them getting this info about 12 members of a sleeper cell - and they got it from the youngest brother. How else would they have suddenly found this information? Maybe on confiscated computers? From others that were taken in for questioning? Neither of them would have changed with miranda anyway.

Suppose they read miranda and give him an attorney, the attorney tells him to shut up. They never find out about a sleeper cell, and hundreds of lives are lost ultimately in continued bombings. All easily avoidable with a few hours of interrogation before giving him a free attorney.

I'm just assuming at this point, but you can rest assured that if he gets counsel, it will likely be the end of more info. Any competent attorney is going to tell him to not talk to anyone. And that's fine when it comes to his actions prior to capture - but to assure that the public at large is not in danger, they need to talk to him since he was directly involved.

jimnyc

04-21-2013, 11:51 AM

THIS is why it's urgent that they collect as much info as possible, as soon as possible, without limitation. This info, coupled with the info that 12 others might be out there?

Caught just in time: 'Bombers were about to plant MORE devices but plot was spoiled by release of CCTV photos'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312387/Police-reveal-Boston-bombers-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-plant-MORE-devices-video-released-grenade-barrage-stunned-wounded-brother-submission.html#ixzz2R7LeyLMH

jimnyc

04-21-2013, 12:41 PM

I have another question to pose, related to "rights" and what went down in Boston.

I've been roaming Youtube and a few sites where the anti-government people post, and they are also up in arms about the job that Boston Swat and the FBI did. They don't like the fact that they closed down the city and then went door to door in the vicinity of the last sighting of the bomber. Some that were very close to where they thought he was, they were asked to leave and go to friends or families houses.

But some of the nutters don't like the fact that they knocked on doors or looked in yards or asked people top leave or the fact that they asked business owners to remain home.

I'm baffled to why some would have a problem with these people doing the jobs they were trained to do. They were after a known terrorist who was known to be armed and dangerous, who blew off quite a few bombs and already killed a fellow officer. When a terrorist is on the loose on some streets where you just had a shootout, I do not think it's unreasonable of them to perform these extensive searches for them, and for the safety of the civilians.

Missileman

04-21-2013, 01:26 PM

Strawman. I don't see anybody arguing any of this.

I JUST did!

taft2012

04-21-2013, 01:34 PM

I'm baffled to why some would have a problem with these people doing the jobs they were trained to do. .

Two basic objections:

1. Self-important crackpots who think the police have nothing better to do all day than dream up ideas to get into their homes and get a gander at their fancy Roebuck furniture.

2. Potheads.

fj1200

04-21-2013, 01:41 PM

...<object id="msnbc2a0fa9" classid="clsid<img src=" images="" smilies="" biggrin.png"="" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="3" class="inlineimg"> waive those right until... they are done.

Is that appropriate </object>:rolleyes: Or not

A suspect is not granted rights when being Mirandized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning).

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that they have the right to remain silent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence), and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court); the person must be clearly informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer) and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if they are indigent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty), an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent them.

A suspect is only informed of rights he already has. There's no taking rev.

fj1200

04-21-2013, 01:46 PM

Strawman. I don't see anybody arguing any of this.

:laugh:

aboutime

04-21-2013, 02:36 PM

I have another question to pose, related to "rights" and what went down in Boston.

I've been roaming Youtube and a few sites where the anti-government people post, and they are also up in arms about the job that Boston Swat and the FBI did. They don't like the fact that they closed down the city and then went door to door in the vicinity of the last sighting of the bomber. Some that were very close to where they thought he was, they were asked to leave and go to friends or families houses.

But some of the nutters don't like the fact that they knocked on doors or looked in yards or asked people top leave or the fact that they asked business owners to remain home.

I'm baffled to why some would have a problem with these people doing the jobs they were trained to do. They were after a known terrorist who was known to be armed and dangerous, who blew off quite a few bombs and already killed a fellow officer. When a terrorist is on the loose on some streets where you just had a shootout, I do not think it's unreasonable of them to perform these extensive searches for them, and for the safety of the civilians.

jimnyc. Take notice. The majority of those who complained about the police techniques in Boston HATE ENFORCEMENT when it might include them, or expose their illegal methods, and tendencies. But...they are also the same people who WHINE, and CRY the loudest when...The Police Overlook, or Miss something that might cause them harm.
MURPHY'S Law, and CATCH-22 always apply in such cases.
Damned if they do. Damned if they don't. And Like Obama...Not in my back yard.

revelarts

04-21-2013, 03:35 PM

I have another question to pose, related to "rights" and what went down in Boston.

I've been roaming Youtube and a few sites where the anti-government people post, and they are also up in arms about the job that Boston Swat and the FBI did. They don't like the fact that they closed down the city and then went door to door in the vicinity of the last sighting of the bomber. Some that were very close to where they thought he was, they were asked to leave and go to friends or families houses.

But some of the nutters don't like the fact that they knocked on doors or looked in yards or asked people top leave or the fact that they asked business owners to remain home.

I'm baffled to why some would have a problem with these people doing the jobs they were trained to do. They were after a known terrorist who was known to be armed and dangerous, who blew off quite a few bombs and already killed a fellow officer. When a terrorist is on the loose on some streets where you just had a shootout, I do not think it's unreasonable of them to perform these extensive searches for them, and for the safety of the civilians.

I can't speak for everyone you read who where upset or there reasons for it and i won't assume you agree with everything Taft or AT or other people on youtube who want to kill or deport muslims says about this Boston attack.

but you mention several things.
1. closed down the city.
what authority do they have to do that. , Marshall law is the only on that comes to mind.
Was it necessary? Maybe? I understand some Boston police said that the only reason it was done was because the city officials thought if someone else were hurt that the city MIGHT be sued. So can't have that. shut down the city. If that's the case then HECK NO they had no right to do it. CYA is no reason to shut down the city. The city is not you momma or your daddy. cops are not our mommas or daddys. If they believe there's danger, a REQUEST that all citizen stay home is fine. An ORDER is a legal issue that needs more than a fear of a suit or just a blanket fear that something might happen in a city of 3 million. IMO that's to broad. As it is the police didn't catch the guy until A lowly citizen reported what they saw in there home. Citizens are the one who USUALLY find the suspects 1st. the NY Car bomber, the underwear bomber, the Shoe Bomber, and many -most?- others U.S. terror bobmbing were spotted and some stopped by citizens. The FBI has been on top of many BEFORE they even had a plan to do somthing , _like the Boston Bombers- but once they are in motion the citizens are often pointing them out to police or stopping them themselves.
Keeping people safe is a great idea but people going to work and taking care of biz are the best eye's and ears the community of 3 million Bostonians are not not all victems to be protected by law enforncement and city officials but partners in self protection . IMO. When something like this happens the people and the pros need to work together. Officials should not assume that the people are in the way. Or want to obstruct progress.

2. Police door to door
OK thats fine. knock on my door,
Me: Hello officer.
Police: Hi, we think the bomber might be in this area have you seen anything , is this man in your home?
Me: No officer i haven't seen anything and He's not in my house.
Police: Thank you, bye.
Me: God Bless you Officer hope you find them soon.
I've got ZERO problem with that.
But if that come to door and expect to be let in after I've told them no one here and they are just fishing. No they are wasting both of ours time.
They can walk through the yard even the back yard ,
"sorry no I'm not going to leash my German Shepard. I told you officer if someone's back there she would have brought me a piece already." bye i hope caught them.

3. asked people to leave...
Asked people to leave what? their homes? Ok, maybe.
Is the suspect cornered on the next block?
Are there bombs nearby? Is the suspect in the area? like a few miles.
I'm assuming it's one of those. if so Yes sure.
If not, um no.
thanks for asking though.

4.asked business owners to remain home...
Again maybe, if it's just a blanket 3 million people stay home. that doesn't sound like it's very specific danger wise. Depending on my Biz i might go in. some people may be depending on me to get work done.
If it's specific, like "we want to close these 3 downtown blocks." OK, Absolutely, I'm not going near work there.

It's not about trying to stop the police from doing a job they are trained to do. I want them to do there job. I want to help if possible. But don't ask the world to stop because you're not sure which direction to look 1st. The world going along with an open ears and eye's are not just potential victim but partners here.

those answer probalby just piss people law n types off but that's how i see it.

jimnyc

04-21-2013, 03:43 PM

I don't know what to say, Rev. I know you don't like government, and that's your right, but some stuff just leaves me with my head shaking.

Can you imagine them asking someone if they are OK, getting an affirmative, and then leaving - to find out that 10 minutes later 15 people in that house were killed as the guy was hiding in the back room where he broke in. "Oh, the police should have done more. It doesn't take a genius to know he'd be in the area".

I don't care much anymore how much the anti-government people complain about shit like this. These men did a fucking awesome job, on short notice and made no waste of time. They took authority but also took care. They were methodical and they caught their man. There is ZERO reason to complain about how these HEROES stood in the line of fire and faced these 2 threats. People complaining about how these men risked their lives and certainly saved endless lives (based on the bombs confiscated at homes)

revelarts

04-21-2013, 04:03 PM

I don't know what to say, Rev. I know you don't like government, and that's your right, but some stuff just leaves me with my head shaking.

Can you imagine them asking someone if they are OK, getting an affirmative, and then leaving - to find out that 10 minutes later 15 people in that house were killed as the guy was hiding in the back room where he broke in. "Oh, the police should have done more. It doesn't take a genius to know he'd be in the area".

I don't care much anymore how much the anti-government people complain about shit like this. These men did a fucking awesome job, on short notice and made no waste of time. They took authority but also took care. They were methodical and they caught their man. There is ZERO reason to complain about how these HEROES stood in the line of fire and faced these 2 threats. People complaining about how these men risked their lives and certainly saved endless lives (based on the bombs confiscated at homes)
I don't know the details of door to door search but I don't believe they found them that way did they? Didn't the home owner find the guy in his boat?
Then called the police who did do a great job. after they knew where he was.
And they did a great job of finding the 1st guy and heroic work there as well.
I have not complained about the apprehension and shooting of the bombers have I?
You didn't ask about confiscateing of Bombs from the home etc.. that was great work.
You asked why people are upset about door to searches etc. I gave you my reasons.

Someone else asked in another thread i think, if 'Bostonians wished they had guns at home'.
guess who might be dead if a bomber were hiding in a back room. Not 15 people in the house.
Ether way the cops didn't find the guy with the door to door search or the shut down of the city.
yes they did a great job but those things didn't seem to help that much.

I don't understand why people think the police are the only one that have eyes to see or hands to act when something like this happens.

Missileman

04-21-2013, 04:05 PM

I don't know the details of door to door search but I don't believe they found them that way did they? Didn't the home owner find the guy in his boat?
Then called the police who did do a great job. after they knew where he was.
And they did a great job of finding the 1st guy and heroic work there as well.
I have not complained about the apprehension of the bobmers have I?
You asked why people are upset about door to searches etc. I gave you my reasons.

Someone else asked in another thread i think, if 'Bostonians wished they had guns at home'.
guess who might be dead if a bomber were hiding in a back room. Not 15 people in the house.
Ether way the cops didn't find the guy with the door to door search or the shut down of the city.
yes they did a great job but those things didn't seem to help that much.

I don't understand why people think the police are the only one that have eyes to see or hands to act when something like this happens.

The shutdown made escape more difficult...no crowds to blend into/get lost in. Also, less cars on the roads which might be used to get away.

aboutime

04-21-2013, 04:09 PM

I don't know the details of door to door search but I don't believe they found them that way did they? Didn't the home owner find the guy in his boat?
Then called the police who did do a great job. after they knew where he was.
And they did a great job of finding the 1st guy and heroic work there as well.
I have not complained about the apprehension and shooting of the bombers have I?
You didn't ask about confiscateing of Bombs from the home etc.. that was great work.
You asked why people are upset about door to searches etc. I gave you my reasons.

Someone else asked in another thread i think, if 'Bostonians wished they had guns at home'.
guess who might be dead if a bomber were hiding in a back room. Not 15 people in the house.
Ether way the cops didn't find the guy with the door to door search or the shut down of the city.
yes they did a great job but those things didn't seem to help that much.

I don't understand why people think the police are the only one that have eyes to see or hands to act when something like this happens.

Rev. Those very first THREE WORDS you said above. Said everything anyone needed to know, as in..."I don't know". That told us all what ALL of us should be saying. And stay quiet about.
None of us were there.
None of us are Police officers in Boston, or Watertown.
ALL OF US should just allow the authorities to handle it.

Robert A Whit

04-21-2013, 04:10 PM

I don't know the details of door to door search but I don't believe they found them that way did they? Didn't the home owner find the guy in his boat?
Then called the police who did do a great job. after they knew where he was.
And they did a great job of finding the 1st guy and heroic work there as well.
I have not complained about the apprehension and shooting of the bombers have I?
You didn't ask about confiscateing of Bombs from the home etc. they was great work.
You asked why people are upset about door to searches etc. I gave you my reasons.

Someone else asked in another thread i think, if 'Bostonians wished they had guns at home'.
guess who might be dead if a bomber were hiding in a back room. Not 15 people in the house.
Ether way the cops didn't find the guy with the door to door search or the shut down of the city.
yes they did a great job but those things didn't seem to help that much.

I don't understand why people think the police are the only one that have eyes to see or hands to act when something like this happens.

It has been pointed out that had that homeowner not been ordered to stay inside his home, the kid that put the bombs down would have been caught much sooner.

Jim finally gave me the key I wanted. As Jim says, today ... TODAY, not yesterday or the days previous, but TODAY an official says film exists of the boy bomber putting down the bomb and it exploding.

I am no mind reader and my quest has been for actual proof. Evidence like film footage is very good evidence.

All i had been asking for.

Thank god it finally was brought up today.

jimnyc

04-21-2013, 04:11 PM

I don't know the details of door to door search but I don't believe they found them that way did they? Didn't the home owner find the guy in his boat?
Then called the police who did do a great job. after they knew where he was.
And they did a great job of finding the 1st guy and heroic work there as well.
I have not complained about the apprehension and shooting of the bombers have I?
You didn't ask about confiscateing of Bombs from the home etc. they was great work.
You asked why people are upset about door to searches etc. I gave you my reasons.

Someone else asked in another thread i think, if 'Bostonians wished they had guns at home'.
guess who might be dead if a bomber were hiding in a back room. Not 15 people in the house.
Ether way the cops didn't find the guy with the door to door search or the shut down of the city.
yes they did a great job but those things didn't seem to help that much.

I don't understand why people think the police are the only one that have eyes to see or hands to act when something like this happens.

It's not that they are the only ones, but they are responsible, that's their jobs! Let them do their jobs. They did everything by the book. It was like one huge SWAT operation to locate and neutralize a terrorist. Whether one house or a neighborhood, that's how they ensure the safety of everyone and find their suspect at the same time. They are not trained to assume this house or that house is clear without clearing it themselves.

I would argue for why residents having guns would have helped too. And I don't think that kid ends up in that boat if not for their efforts. He likely would have stayed in his car, or grabbed another, and blended into traffic. He had nowhere to go but hide.

Robert A Whit

04-21-2013, 04:18 PM

The shutdown made escape more difficult...no crowds to blend into/get lost in. Also, less cars on the roads which might be used to get away.

But for the end of the shutdown, the guy might not have gone to his boat and located the bomber.

Duh, he was not found by the cops, the private citizen located him. locked into his home, he could not have gone to his own boat.

aboutime

04-21-2013, 04:21 PM

Missileman. Are you laughing as hard as I am right now?

Can you honestly believe what you have been reading below?

Looks like the Rocking Chair was ONLY THE BEGINNING.

Voted4Reagan

04-21-2013, 05:14 PM

aboutime

04-21-2013, 05:23 PM

Tsarnaev isn't anything more then an enemy combatant.

No Miranda

No Rights

Ship him to Gitmo for a tribunal and then off to Black Dolphin Prison to spend the rest of his life w/ the Russian Cannibals

Maddow must defend anyone who thinks, acts, and pretends to be concerned about living in America.

Too bad Maddow's rights are defended, and guaranteed nobody will ever stop HIM from speaking Lies.

fj1200

04-21-2013, 07:41 PM

Tsarnaev isn't anything more then an enemy combatant.

No Miranda

No Rights

Ship him to Gitmo for a tribunal and then off to Black Dolphin Prison to spend the rest of his life w/ the Russian Cannibals

I thought he became a citizen. Not that the situation would be different if he wasn't.

Missileman

04-21-2013, 09:23 PM

I thought he became a citizen. Not that the situation would be different if he wasn't.

He was naturalized. I would argue he has now forfeited his citizenship and all associated rights that goes with it. He didn't abide by his oath(contract), why should we?

aboutime

04-21-2013, 09:27 PM

I thought he became a citizen. Not that the situation would be different if he wasn't.

Anyone who intentionally BETRAYS their nation by any kind of attack, killing, bombing, or spread of AIDS loses their rights. And that means. They are officially an Enemy of the State.
Those who are Prisoners of War are not granted Constitutional Rights.

revelarts

04-21-2013, 09:45 PM

Anyone who intentionally BETRAYS their nation by any kind of attack, killing, bombing, or spread of AIDS loses their rights. And that means. They are officially an Enemy of the State.
Those who are Prisoners of War are not granted Constitutional Rights.

you don't lose jack without a trial.
and even after a trial. no cruel or unusual punishment applies.
and the rights are not just American rights they are natural rights "God given rights".

the mob mentality makes us forget some of our principals and fancy talk about law and Constitution.

"we are a nation of laws"
until someone does something that really pisses us off then we make up the laws as we go, to fit the mood and say 'that's what it's always meant' or 'it should be changed' or 'he's CiC of the armed forces he CAN do that' and get mad at people who tells us different.
God bless amerika

aboutime

04-21-2013, 09:51 PM

you don't lose jack without a trial.
and even after a trial. no cruel or unusual punishment applies.
and the rights are not just American rights they are natural rights "God given rights".

the mob mentality makes us forget some of our principals and fancy talk about law and Constitution.

"we are a nation of laws"
until someone does something that really pisses us off then we make up the laws as we go, to fit the mood and say 'that's what it's always meant' or 'it should be changed' or 'he's CiC of the armed forces he CAN do that' and get mad at people who tells us different.
God bless amerika

Rev. The way you spelled that last word tells me everything I need to know about you.
God wouldn't be as disrespectful.

Voted4Reagan

04-21-2013, 10:13 PM

I thought he became a citizen. Not that the situation would be different if he wasn't.

citizenship can be REVOKED.

Revoke it, Pay the Russians the cost of incarcerating him for 100 years and put him in BLACK DOLPHIN where he belongs.

Russian Guards would WELCOME the chance to have a Chechen Terrorist in Black Dolphin.

So would Vladimir Nikolaev and the other cannibals, too bad Andrei Chikitilo died years ago...

fj1200

04-21-2013, 10:40 PM

He was naturalized. I would argue he has now forfeited his citizenship and all associated rights that goes with it. He didn't abide by his oath(contract), why should we?

No argument here but it's what we do.

Anyone who intentionally BETRAYS their nation by any kind of attack, killing, bombing, or spread of AIDS loses their rights. And that means. They are officially an Enemy of the State.
Those who are Prisoners of War are not granted Constitutional Rights.

He's not a POW and besides, POWs are granted other protections via the GC (which many conservatives believe terrorists do not fall under).

Spread of AIDS? :confused:

citizenship can be REVOKED.

Not without due process I'm sure.

Membership in a subversive organization or group within five years after you became a naturalized citizen could lead to revocation of your citizenship. The Communist Party and terrorist groups are the classic examples of "subversive" organizations.
http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/Denaturalization-Revoking-Your-US-Citizenship.html

Nevertheless, I imagine the outcome would be the same citizen or not.

revelarts

04-21-2013, 11:05 PM

Rev. The way you spelled that last word tells me everything I need to know about you.
God wouldn't be as disrespectful.

If the people and the leaders don't really care about living up to its founding docs and it's principals,
why should they care how America is spelled?

priorities out of balance.

And why do you think God is going to care how it's spelled when we're killing more babies everyday than were killed on 9/11. And people take his name on their lips as curse multiple times a day without even thinking.

red states rule

04-22-2013, 03:07 AM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn041913dAPR20130419124513.jpg

aboutime

04-22-2013, 06:10 PM

No argument here but it's what we do.

He's not a POW and besides, POWs are granted other protections via the GC (which many conservatives believe terrorists do not fall under).

Spread of AIDS? :confused:

Not without due process I'm sure.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/Denaturalization-Revoking-Your-US-Citizenship.html

Nevertheless, I imagine the outcome would be the same citizen or not.

Something most everyone always fails to remember, or understand whenever they mention the G.C. Geneva Conventions is...

They apply to members of the military, and are only recognized by nations during times of Declared War.

The G.C. does not apply to civilians.

fj1200

04-23-2013, 07:18 AM

The G.C. does not apply to civilians.

Don't call him a POW then.

taft2012

04-23-2013, 09:47 AM

... and to sum it all up, there is no such thing as "Constitutional Miranda Rights". The concept is an invention of the US Supreme Court.

To say the Public Safety Exception intrudes upon one's "Miranda Rights" is like saying state laws limiting the availability of abortions intrudes upon one's Constitutional right to an abortion, abortion also not being a Constitutional "right", but rather an invented concept by the US Supreme Court.

The Public Safety Exception is nothing new created by the "ZOMG! horrific Bush/Ashcroft Era", but rather something that has been in place for a long time and applicable to all American citizens.

Case closed, in spite of the teeth gnashing and hair tearing by the Maddow Liberals and Pothead Conservatives, soulmates in an endless journey for a legal high.

I wish they'd all just fire up some bath salts and eat each other.

taft2012

04-23-2013, 11:19 AM

you don't lose jack without a trial.

So much wrong, all for some weed. SMH.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/former_us_attorney_michael_sul_3.html

Former Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan said Sunday that he wants the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin the process of revoking Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s U.S. citizenship.

Tsarnaev, originally from Chechnya, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who took the oath to become a citizen on Sept. 11, 2012.

Sullivan, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, said the government should initiate court proceedings to revoke his citizenship on the grounds that “the naturalization was procured either by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” (Those are the criteria laid out by federal law for revoking citizenship.)

“After making false statements under oath and committing these acts of terror against our nation and its citizens, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has renounced any alleged loyalty to our country and has forfeited the gift of U.S. citizenship our great nation has bestowed upon him,” Sullivan said in a statement. “It should be revoked as quickly as the law allows."

Historically, revoking citizenship has mostly been done in cases involving Nazis and other World War II criminals who lied on immigration applications to conceal their identities.

Practically, Sullivan said revoking Tsarnaev’s citizenship would probably not impact the legal proceedings against him. However, it could have an effect if the government were to classify Tsarnaev as an “enemy combatant.”

An enemy combatant means someone fighting for a nation against which the U.S. is at war, or, since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, anyone fighting on behalf of al-Qaeda, the Taliban or related forces. Enemy combatants have fewer rights than regular criminals. Americans classified as enemy combatants have certain rights to trial and to challenge their detention, which non-citizens do not have.

Sullivan said that he does not know whether Tsarnaev should be tried as an enemy combatant. “If the government believes he has information that would advance our national security, they have to make that judgment whether or not information is more easily obtained if he is held as an enemy combatant as opposed to being criminally charged. I don’t have that information,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan said that the purpose of revoking Tsarnaev’s citizenship would not be because of the enemy combatant designation. “It is recognizing that the naturalization of citizenship is a tremendous privilege, and millions of people have gone through that process proudly and sworn their oath of allegiance for the U.S. Out of respect for those people, as a nation we should question whether or not the privilege should be revoked,” he said.

aboutime

04-23-2013, 02:29 PM

Don't call him a POW then.

Okay fj. Since you have decided all by yourself. Let's use a hypothetical here.

Two people you do not know, stood outside of your home and placed two, black, bookbags with explosives in them with a timer, set to go off just as you, or members of your family opened your front door.
And..just before they pressed the tiny button on their cell-phone to explode the packages. YOU heard them yell ALLAH AKBAR, or some other religious words...then watched the members of your family BECOME thousands of pieces of broken body parts.

What would YOU CALL THEM?

fj1200

04-23-2013, 03:30 PM

Okay fj. Since you have decided all by yourself. Let's use a hypothetical here.

...

What would YOU CALL THEM?

It doesn't matter what I call them as it's already been decided. Are they citizens? Do they belong to a recognized foreign army? Are they a combatant? Their actions determine that they are terrorists regardless of any other status. In the case of Boston they are citizens although that can presumably be revoked.

Little-Acorn

04-23-2013, 03:51 PM

The guy with the empty holster in the store, didn't have to say a word when the cop asked him where the gun was. He had that right (to remain silent, to not say anything that might incriminate him, or to not say anything at all), whether Miranda existed at all, whether the cop informed him waht his rights were, whether some "Public Safety" exception exists or not. And that's the way it should be.

But if the cop asks him where it is without informing him what his rights are, the cop has done NOTHING to violate the Constitution. If the guy says nothing, and the cop starts yelling at him, taking him by the collar and pulling him close to yell into his face, the cop HAS violated the man's constitutional rights.

In that case, considering that maybe the man gave his gun to a friend who might still be nearby, perhaps a "public safety" exception is a good idea. But the fact remains that there is no such exception to the Constitution's flat ban on the cop questioning him when he doesn't want to talk. This might be one of the rare times when a Constitutional amendment is needed, to carefully put in (and limit) such an exception.

But the BOR has been around for more than 200 years, and I'm sure this question has come up before, maybe hundrds of years ago. And the American people have seen fit to NOT put such a "public safety" exception into it, despite hudreds of years of opportunities to do so.

They put in a Constitutional amendment in to move Inauguration Day from March to January, for crissake - a comparatively trivial matter. But they carefully did NOT put a Public Safety exception into the 5th amendment... a matter one would think is a lot more important. They could have slipped it into the 20th amendment just as the did the Inaug Day thing... but they didn't.

They must have had a very good reason. I wonder what it was/is?

taft2012

04-23-2013, 03:57 PM

But they carefully did NOT put a Public Safety exception into the 5th amendment... a matter one would think is a lot more important. They could have slipped it into the 20th amendment just as the did the Inaug Day thing... but they didn't.

They must have had a very good reason. I wonder what it was/is?

It's not that complicated.

The Consitution was not written to the exclusion of common sense.

Missileman

04-23-2013, 04:34 PM

It's not that complicated.

The Consitution was not written to the exclusion of common sense.

It is more often than not these days applied in that manner though.

revelarts

04-24-2013, 12:35 PM

neo-conconservatives should write their on version of the bill of rights and constitution.

the left should too.

the rest of will stick with the one we 've got.