DOJ: No Miranda rights

[IlarMeilyr]

It would actually be better not to try him in any civilian court of law IF he did what he did as a method of attempting to change any U.S. policy relative to Chechnya or relative to any fighting against Isalmo-Jihadist scumbags anywhere else on Earth.

For if that had been his purpose, this was not a "crime;" it was an act of war. And if that's the case, a military tribunal is more than he really deserves.

Liberals are so quick to forget the difference between "crime" and "war" when it suits their idiotic infantile preconceived notions and purposes.

 

[Ragnar]

I'm not worried in the least about a scumbag terrorist getting convicted. There is plenty of evidence to be had and multiple legal ways to get it. And not for nothing but military courts are not "kangaroo courts".

There is reason to have a legitimate concern for the whittling away of the rights of American citizens in the name of public safety. (weather it's under Bush, Obama or anyone else)

 

[mamooth]

I think arbitrarily defining anything you don't like after the fact as an "act of war" would be the idiotic infantile way of looking at the world.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I think arbitrarily defining anything you don't like after the fact as an "act of war" would be the idiotic infantile way of looking at the world.

If it were "arbitrary," for the first time in your posting history, you might be right about something.

Try again, ya hideously ineffectual sad sack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "public safety exception" to the Miranda rule arises from a SCOTUS case entitled NEW YORK v. QUARLES, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The facts of that case were that the police were provided with a description of a rape suspect who had a gun. Police locate suspect at grocery store. No gun. Police question subject about location of gun without Miranda warning. Suspect tells police location of gun. Gun found.

SCOTUS held that a "public safety exception" is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger. In this case the threat may be the existence of other unexploded bombs or the like... The more removed temporally from the initial crime, the less likely it is for the exception to be valid... additionally, the statements obtained must otherwise be voluntary and not coerced. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)

Originally it's right there in the Constitution.

Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

You correctly cite, as far as I know an expansion (or outright creation) of the "public safety exception" but do not address it's further expansion by the Obama administration in 2010.

Obama and Holder have been no great friends of the first, second or fifth amendments.

No one has ever tried to use that law, so we can always hope that the courts strike it down. I don't see any need for it given the other options available, like simply not using anything he says against him in court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Folks, clearly many of you do not understand how Miranda works.

Miranda Rights and When Police Should Read Them

Actually, the idiot that wrote that blog is the one that doesn't understand Miranda.

 

[Connery]

The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ABC news just now


ON EDIT: (took me till 9:43 to get link up)

Boston Bomb Suspect Captured Alive in Backyard Boat - ABC News

A senior Justice Department official told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights, so that Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him.

The federal government's high value detainee interrogation group will be responsible for questioning him.

The Miranda exemption exists to protect the public safety from another attack, according to the official.

Expect more of this too occur

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.

Actually after obama signed the NDAA 2012 into law he lost the right to a lawyer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Folks, clearly many of you do not understand how Miranda works.

Miranda Rights and When Police Should Read Them

That was a great article!! After reading that article I too was unaware of when a person had to be read their rights. Now I know that only when a person is under arrest, and being questioned, does the Miranda warning have to said. And this was made in effort to protect the 5th Amendment. Great read, and I would recommend it to all.

It is actually a hell f a lot more complicated than that. For example, if the police stop you on the road, and detain you, and then ask you questions, Miranda can apply, even though you are not under arrest.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Folks, clearly many of you do not understand how Miranda works.

Miranda Rights and When Police Should Read Them

Actually, the idiot that wrote that blog is the one that doesn't understand Miranda.

When the Miranda Warning Is Required
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read them their Miranda rights if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial.
If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.
Miranda Rights: What Happens If Police Don't 'Read Your Rights' | Nolo.com

 

[Ragnar]

The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.

I don't give a flying frack about the bomber. I'll even confess to a darker side of me finding the idea that his older brother might still be alive but for the possible fact that little bro ran over him to be a hilarious cosmic joke that the universe played on him during an otherwise tragic string of days.

The problem is the government using the bombers actions to expand it's powers bit by little bit over the rest of us who cherish our rights.

 

[novasteve]

well if he gets a really liberal judge, the bomber will likely get off and become a tenured profesor like leftist terrorists do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well if he gets a really liberal judge, the bomber will likely get off and become a tenured profesor like leftist terrorists do.

Nope since obama signed the NDAA 2012 he lost a right to a lawyer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial."

The point is not the police can't do what they are doing with the second bomber and his interrogation.

The only point is that should they be doing it that way.

 

[Connery]

The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.

I don't give a flying frack about the bomber. I'll even confess to a darker side of me finding the idea that his older brother might still be alive but for the possible fact that little bro ran over him to be a hilarious cosmic joke that the universe played on him during an otherwise tragic string of days.

The problem is the government using the bombers actions to expand it's powers bit by little bit over the rest of us who cherish our rights.

Should you find yourself falling within the "public safety" exception I hope you are subjected to the same type of questioning. The moral is do not become a threat to public safety and your "rights" will be intact.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial."

The point is not the police can't do what they are doing with the second bomber and his interrogation.

The only point is that should they be doing it that way.

Dude I'm an ex cop shut the fuck up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial."

The point is not the police can't do what they are doing with the second bomber and his interrogation.

The only point is that should they be doing it that way.

Dude I'm an ex cop shut the fuck up.

Yes, there is a reason you are an ex LEO, but I don't remember it being a cop: doesn't matter.

So, yes, your source reinforces mine.

Mind your language.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial."

The point is not the police can't do what they are doing with the second bomber and his interrogation.

The only point is that should they be doing it that way.

Dude I'm an ex cop shut the fuck up.

Yes, there is a reason you are an ex LEO, but I don't remember it being a cop: doesn't matter.

So, yes, your source reinforces mine.

Mind your language.

Stop your fucking lying.
I know better than you about giving the Miranda rights

bigreb's source: "Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true.

How does my source reference yours when you said it's incorrect?

Regardless, if a person is not mirandized what they say cannot be used against then in court.

 

[Connery]

The bomber is not a victim here. He can ask for an attorney at which point any questioning would stop. Moreover, he posed and acted as an imminent threat to the lives of Americans. The questions that follow include was he acting on behalf of a terrorist organization or acting on his own behalf.

Actually after obama signed the NDAA 2012 into law he lost the right to a lawyer.

Once the accused asked for an attorney the questioning would have to stop. The bomber would have to be read his rights and be charged.

Further, you better tell these guys, "Federal public defenders have agreed to represent the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. Miriam Conrad, the federal defender for Massachusetts, says her office expects to represent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after he is charged.

Public defenders will represent Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - Washington Times