Posted on 04/21/2013 3:55:32 AM PDT by LD Jackson
No, I advocate getting rid of Miranda warnings because they were improperly created by an out-of-control radical Leftist court, and impair the right of the People to govern themselves in safety.
Just to further my point, those who respond to the evidence would be the liberals you'd want to engage. Those who scream about "Faux News" are best left alone to their own little delusional worlds.
Bingo! Especially since Obama's government wants Christians and conservatives to be labeled as homegrown terrorist. This is one slippery slope that has no good end.
In the world you describe, I not only do not have the right to remain silent, the police have the right to beat whatever information they can out of me.
We've seen that in Chicago and Mexico. In Chicago's case, suggest you read up a bit on John Burge and the number of convictions now facing being over-turned due to his beating "confessions" out of suspects who's only crime was "confessing" to something they didn't do to make the beatings and electro-torture stop.
The clause itself is unconstitutional and contravenes the 10th. It was rightly ignored by the free states.
Some good advice... I know there’s people we will never win over but there’s a lot of people who can and will see sense. Many conservatives were once liberals who saw the light.
Miranda warnings are related to the Fifth Amendment.
Know any cops before Miranda was put in place?
Yeah, they trampled rights. Many thought the world was coming to an end.
So good Christians all know their law and know the Miranda rights.
So it is okay not to give it to them.
That seems to be what someone is saying on this thread. You should know your 5th Amendment rights so since you should know them we aren’t going to tell you.
But what about those that don’t know.
Not everyone knows.
Thus you give the Miranda warning to everyone.
It actually protects law enforcement.
One of the great things about this nation - as opposed to many others - is the rights we are SUPPOSE to have that other countries don’t have.
Some of the rights involve criminal prosecution.
"Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision
Yes you are correct, the concept of "Miranda Rights" is not part of the constitution, rather a law to protect an individual of their constitutional rights.
In my original statement i included the word "law" as part of the concept of that the administration of law must be executed with consistency.
It appears to me, that in regards to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the justice system is acting properly in this moment, subject to change.
They should read him his rights. Absolutely. This is going to be a test run of the NDAA watvh.
Here is the problem with that
““3. There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.””
In US law you have to protect the rights of the worst in order to protect all of our rights. You shouldn’t pick and choose.
Ex:
This person SHOULD know his rights so don’t read Miranda.
This person is deemed by DHS to be a terrorist (right wing Christian) so let’s interrogate for a long while under public safety exemption under #3 as expressed by Holder.
This is a huge slippery slope. I don’t trust Holder or anyone in Obama’s regime.
Here is one more question.
You want a lawyer. You tell Holder you want a lawyer.
Can he deny you one under his expanded Public Safety “your a terrorist “ regime so that he can further interrogate you.
Here is one more scenario that could happen.
You are at an event. You have a backpack.
A Jihadists STEALS it from you , darts somewhere, puts a bomb in it, and then puts somewhere where it goes off.
You are seen in some camera footage with that backpack but no camera footage of Jihadists placing the backpack where it goes off.
NOW WHAT????
Maybe they find footage a week later.
In the meantime, Holder decides to treat you like a terrorist.
Want some legal rights???
This may sound far fetched...but it’s not. It could happen.
My original post suggested we as society should not look for "exceptions" in the law as some are suggesting for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The importance for even and consistent execution of the law
If I understand your post correctly, item 3 re exceptional cases . . . yes I agree this is very much a dangerous and slippery slope
Sadly our own Republican leaders said the following . . .
“We have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to Miranda, could very well be a national security mistake. It could severely limit our ability to gather critical information about future attacks from this suspect,” they said.
They being Sen. King, McCain and Ayotte
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/20/should-boston-bombing-suspect-get-a-miranda-warning-debate-follows-friday-capture/
I agree.
Once naturalized, you have the same rights as a native-born American.
I agree with the ‘five things coming to him’.
I agree with the posed ‘what-if’s’ not being pondered about, loudly, by those who some listen to!
Finally, what precedents might be made, in error or in truth, that would come back to haunt all of us who ARE native-boen Americans?
“We do not read POW’s their rights.”
And for good reason - POWs (enemy combatants meeting certain qualifications) are protected under the Geneva Conventions.
Unless we are now actually going to recognize Islam as a “state player” (a political system), this all defaults to the guy’s rights as an American Citizen. As it should.
Full Disclosure: I do not condone the actions of the Brothers Tsarnaev. They are heinous, repugnant, and fully deserving of the maximum punishment under the law. I am, however, sworn to support and defend the Constitution - whether or not I personally agree with the outcome. It could be one of us in the next round.
At that point, he's an enemy combatant and nothing more.
Bill Ayers is "free as a bird" because the government disobeyed the law.
I’m not going to bite on what if questions.
The Miranda notification is not required by the Constitution.
Again, this is not a precedent. It’s been used before. Even if it is ruled later that the government cannot use the exception this time, the only penalty will be that they cannot use any testimony obtained before a Miranda notification in the trial against the guy.
Again, they are not required by law to give the person a Miranda notification. Police give the notification to protect all testimony evidence in their case.
You don’t seem to understand that they already have enough evidence against this guy. They will be interrogating him to get information about the others who are involved, and any plans by the group for future terrorism attacks.
He is Russian by rights of political geography.
Don’t know about any of that. The moslim way is to convert or kill. Looks like war to me.
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.