Free Republic

Its been pointed out that those are quotes from a leftist marine officer of the era.

Here is a second posting on Little Green Footballs about this suspect.

Yep, I'm betting its some form of whacko Left website.

Did you know that you are a very mean person?

I've long thought it was John Dean himself. Fielding is an interesting idea, but if so, I think he was channeling on Dean's behalf. Dean was the true rotten core of the whole scandal.

Actually, pseudonym book reviews have a long history going back to Walt Whitman writing a review of his own book of poetry under an assumed name.

DEBKA credibility remains very low. This article is a good example, there will be no parachute drops on Baghdad in this war. The era of paradropping troops into combat ended long ago. In fact, this article sounds sourced in the Tel Aviv insane asylum.

"massive" ? ROFL - I doubt it. Recall that during the first Gulf War, that any anti-war types were quickly ridiculed by the real masses.

A murder charge would be appropriate. Attempted murder if the thief lives. This was not self-defense.

No one has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at a civil trial.

This case is not about overturning the Miranda requirements at all - the court isn't considering that and that is not a possible outcome. The issue is solely about whether or not there is civil liability ( outside of the penalties at trial of a suspect ) for violating Miranda.

My summary is correct - you are getting focused on the arguments used by each side to get to the end conclusion.

You are still confused about this appeal. It is separate from the excessive force complaint against the officers who shot him.

Here's what I understand: a man lies in an ER dying being questioned by the same guy that shot him 5 times. "get bent" means "get bent" - I'm not saying crap, leave me alone.

Again you misrepresent what happened. The officer who questioned the plaintiff wasn't the same officer who shot him.

Fascinating.

It looks like the courts have sided with keeping an improperly obtained confession out of civil litigation.

No, you misunderstand the case as well. The issue is whether or not the violation of Miranda was itself something that results in a cause of action in a civil lawsuit against the officer. The issue is not whether or not what the plaintiff said was admissable.

Orion says: Yes, the 9th has a reputation of being a bit loony. In this case they may be wrong because the 5th Amendment only applies to criminal cases, and this was civil. This opens Pandora's Box. Can agents of the state torture someone to provide evidence contrary to the tortured's basis of a civil claim against the state? The 9th says no - all others say yes.

You have completely misrepresented this case. No one says that torture is acceptable. In this case, there is no allegation of torture - only that the officer interrogated the plaintiff without reading him his rights. No circuit claims that torture is acceptable - where do you get such complete nonsense?

We already knew that you didn't understand the issue.

If the officer had been hitting the suspect, then there would be no controversy and the plaintiff would have had a good case. That didn't happen here. The issue is whether or not the plaintiff can recover damages solely for being questioned in violation of Miranda.