Posted on 04/20/2013 10:30:05 AM PDT by Mean Daddy
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Interesting. Question him and then off to Gitmo you go.
has revived a constitutionally charged debate over the handling of terrorism cases in the criminal justice system.
Terrorism cases need to be classified as acts of war against the United States. They should never see the inside of a criminal courtroom.
This entire thing to going to turn into a giant circle jerk. Just wait until holder gets more deeply involved. He will screw it up so bad that I would not be surprised if the murderer get set free.
I believe the tax payers would have been better off he he had been found dead.
Miranda was wrongly decided. I couldn’t care less about this little dipshit and what they did or didn’t tell him.
“Miranda will be ignored altogether”
Good.
“Then why was Miranda rights granted to terrorists captured on War-Zones?”
Because the people running the “war” were incompetent.
Oops. Thank you.
From our earliest history we’ve tried citizens who do things like this in civilian courts.
Got to conclude that’s the constitutional way.
Of course there’s been a lot of non-constitutional “rights” created by the courts and legislatures for suspects over the years that spoil the system.
Thanks.
No. The courts have repeatedly ruled that being in custody is as good as being under arrest.
I agree with that but I wonder what will get defined as terrorism. A priest speaking out against homosexuality would be a terrorist if you let the lefties define it.
I think one can discern the difference between a person who is a criminal bomber (arsonist, murderer, etc.) and one who bombs for the purpose of harming or over throwing the country. This is especially true when there is a connection to a foreign nation or group).
Thanks. At least Both abraham lincoln and fdr took care of enemy agents (regardless of citizenship one way or the other) with military- or summary- type judicial procedures, a full normal civilian trial is arguably both unnecessary and likely quite unwise. Military court procedures may be more effective and less dangerous under the conditions. Just a thought
Note that the so-called Miranda right is not a constitutionally protected right, but a warning arguably legislated from the bench by good-intentioned justices.
Miranda warning
But as a consequence of their good intentions, the courts have inadvertently sent out contradictory signals evidenced by the Miranda warning courtesy on one hand, while arguing that ignorance of the law is no excuse on the other hand.
Imo, it's the responsibility of every citizen to know their constitutonal rights, the 5A right not to self-incriminate oneself in this example. Especially taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime, I would personally throw the Obama administration's rant that suspected bomber's "constitutional" (my word) right to be read the Miranda warning was violated out the window.
I researched the treatment of “white renegades” in our early history and was surprised to find that they were mostly captured by the military and handed over for civilian trial.
Those cases seem legally very similar to Muslim attacks IMO.
Can’t find any sources at this time though.
Will ping you back if they re-occur to me.
Of course the trial of John Brown by the state of Virginia is a well-known applicable case.
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.