Freepers, your Contributions make every difference!
Please keep ‘em coming! Thank you all very much!
Posted on 04/19/2013 7:03:31 PM PDT by Perdogg
And...scene. RT @adamsavader BREAKING: NBC Reporting that Suspect #2 has been Mirandized by the FBI.— Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) April 20, 2013
They did Mirandize him after all?
I’m making a veiled reference to the fact that Cambridge Mass. is the hub or one of the primary centers of progressive radicalism in the US...
I contend that if you want your kid totally turned to the darkside, you might want to send them there to attend school.
No, you’ve got it backwards — it’s NOT correct that mirandizing a guy makes him a suspect triggering his rights.
It’s when the entirety of the circumstances require that you treat a person of interest as a suspect that you are then required to respect certain constitutional rights and if you wish to question him, then mirandize him.
Look, I’ve argued for thirty years that the exclusionary rule is bass-ackwards. I have always said the right way to go on this is to punish the cops, and not the public. Evidence is evidence. If a cop violated someone’s constitutional rights to get it, then we should punish the cop. We should not punish the public by pretending the evidence does not exist.
By the way, I don’t disagree with your reasoning if the facts were somewhat different. If we were dealing with foreign jihadis who just came across the border and committed terrorism, then yeah, by mirandizing them you probably really ARE telling them something they don’t know and could cause them to shut up.
I'm with you on that point.
He is hopefully about to learn the full meaning of “Useful Idiot” but first he must sing sing sing!
So what. His citizenship should be revoked, anyway. He’s an Islamic enemy combatant.
Out of LE hands? It's law enforcement who will question him, not a judge or lawyer.
You really don't know what you're talking about. I did this for 20 years.
See innovative’s comment for clarification. Sounds like the non-Mirandizing is still on.
I know that you did buddy, I understand your ribbons completely. You might have run across guys like me. I was called “Commander” and “Convening Authority’. Things get a little more complicated from that perspective.
I appreciate and value your service, we are all part of the same fight.
I Kind of suspected this in the breaking news thread for the manhunt...so here comes the civilian trial and the ACLU.
Amen to every word you wrote! Furthermore, for everyone patting themselves on their backs. The fact is a 19 and 26 year old were capable of advancing their agenda against a small army and tremendous amount of resources. They were capable of injuring 200 and killing 5 or 6 inside of 5 days while causing enormous amount of property damage. No matter how you slice it, this is not good. I do not mean any disrespect to the law enforcement involved as they just follow orders, however the results do not bode well for management. There are far too many people everywhere, including on this site who just turn a blinds eye to the ramifications of what just occurred. I hope this changes a lot of peoples minds and pushes them towards protecting this nation and freedom, which include the principles of conservatism and self-determination and liberty.
My concern as well... A test run. No one will convince me there weren’t more people involved in the plot.
I wish they’d blasted him like his brother.
.... However, The second he took up arms against the US he probably lost his standing as an American Citizen.
I am disappointed that you, claiming to have been a commissioned officer, posted this:
I see that I need to converse (talk) at a third grade level:
Bad man is not being bad anymore. He is now behind bars (arrested). Bad man will be brought into court. Lawyers will talk to Judge. Judge will consider Law and Constitution. Judge will rule based on law and evidence.
I am also disappointed that you, claiming to have been a commissioned officer and a convening authority, seem to have little understanding of what you are talking about.
This didn't happen on a military installation. Civilian law enforcement is completely different.
I do not assert that Mirandizing him makes him a suspect.
I only mean to address anything learned from him. I want any potentially useful information learned from him to be admissible. Is there any such information? I don't know. Will he say it? I don't know.
It’s when the entirety of the circumstances require that you treat a person of interest as a suspect that you are then required to respect certain constitutional rights and if you wish to question him, then mirandize him.
I mostly agree with this, except that it must be a custodial relationship. Merely suspecting someone of a crime is not enough, but that doesn't really apply here, I just point it out procedurally. If someone is free to leave but I suspect them of a crime, I can question them all day and the results will be admissible. The moment they either A) incriminate themselves, or B) are in my custody and not free to leave, the courts will begin to discern whether any statements made to me were done with an understanding of their rights.
In this case, that entire construct can be ignored by asking specific questions related to public safety. I see we have differing views about how to apply this stuff; I must say it's a pleasure discussing it with someone who knows what they're talking about. Hopefully we can get some clarity about their decision in the coming days if they either justify, or fail to justify, whatever way they chose to play this.
It's past my bedtime - have a good night and thanks for the discussion.
He’s got a one way ticket to ADX Range 13
I think the truth is somewhere between your opposing positions.
It IS true that “the fear of the U.S.” can be quite effective, especially when directed at foreign leaders. Excellent, easily documented examples are certain former dictators Musharraf and Gaddafi, and that was well before the advent of drone strikes. I would certainly look forward to seeing Southack’s links.
On the other hand, the Israelis have been fairly effective at taking out terrorist leaders for many years, and that hasn’t deterred Hamas or Hezbollah much that I can tell.
I also doubt that in many cases a suicide bomber or a terrorist willing to strap a bomb onto himself to blow himself up with others, rather than being captured, is worried too much about U.S. drone strikes. As was learned in the Iran-Iraq war, or even in the second Gulf War, there are PLENTY of fanatics perfectly willing to go out on suicide missions. Higher-ups in the organization very well might worry about their own skins, but might be just as likely to try to further remove traceable links to themselves, as to give up their “Holy War”.
Here within the U.S. there is another factor, which I was discussing with my wife, earlier today. Here, the media publishes virtually every detail of how suspects (such as the Boston Bombers) are found. This of course includes what actions and mistakes the suspects make, even if the mistakes are not always identified by the media as such. The two Boston Bombers clearly made many such mistakes that could for the most part be easily avoided by the next terrorists. These bombers also failed to take many actions that would have made them harder to find — they really seem to have been amateurs in many ways, even if their intent was simply to create havoc as long as possible.
Taken a step further, the fact that these two, and especially Dzokhar Tsarnaev, got as far as they did, while being as inept as they were, in the midst of an incredible law enforcement presence, would tell any foreign power willing to risk conflict with the U.S. in the first place, that here lies a golden opportunity to create extensive havoc in this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.