DOJ: No Miranda rights

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

Understand that bigreb really does not understand much of what he spouts.

He claims he was a cop, which I think is very doubtful: maybe a prison guard or something.

I correct bigrebnc where necessary and he cries. The way it is.

You can correct someone and still be wrong, so knock yourself out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

The Miranda Warning - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I said it was "Not true" because an accused cannot escape punishment simply because they were not read their Miranda warning.

Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

However, even ‘enemy combatants’ retain basic due process rights. See: Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Rendering the OP premise even more idiotic.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

Not in North Carolina I spent two years as a police officer in that state. I know the law especially during that period of time.

Congrats on being a cop in NC for 2 years. That still does not change the fact that under the USA PATRIOT Act, anyone who has been deemed an "enemy combatant" does not get afforded the rights as a normal citizen would. One of the great parts of the Law (sarcasm). AND if the government believes that you were part of a cell, and there is still a danger out there, then they can use the public safety exception, for which they do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. I am not talking about the way it "used to be." I am talking about the way it is now, in 2013.

 

[Flopper]

I really think some people would like see the clause, "unless you're a really bad guy" added to the Bill of Rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

However, even ‘enemy combatants’ retain basic due process rights. See: Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Rendering the OP premise even more idiotic.

I'll remind you under that law that obama signed called the NDAA 2012 SINCE HE COMMITTED A TERRORIST ATTACK HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. YOU CAN THANK OBAMA FOR THAT. Which it makes the OP pretty much correct.

 

[whitehall]

How can they go wrong when they set their own rules? Being a Fed means never having to say you are sorry.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

Not in North Carolina I spent two years as a police officer in that state. I know the law especially during that period of time.

Congrats on being a cop in NC for 2 years. That still does not change the fact that under the USA PATRIOT Act, anyone who has been deemed an "enemy combatant" does not get afforded the rights as a normal citizen would. One of the great parts of the Law (sarcasm). AND if the government believes that you were part of a cell, and there is still a danger out there, then they can use the public safety exception, for which they do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. I am not talking about the way it "used to be." I am talking about the way it is now, in 2013.

Slow down you're bouncing all through the years. You went from 1984 at the light of speed to the year 2002 You're addressing one situation with another. Neither are the same.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

However, even ‘enemy combatants’ retain basic due process rights. See: Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Rendering the OP premise even more idiotic.

I'll remind you under that law that obama signed called the NDAA 2012 SINCE HE COMMITTED A TERRORIST ATTACK HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. YOU CAN THANK OBAMA FOR THAT. Which it makes the OP pretty much correct.

At least you’re consistent in contributing nothing of value.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

However, even ‘enemy combatants’ retain basic due process rights. See: Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Rendering the OP premise even more idiotic.

I'll remind you under that law that obama signed called the NDAA 2012 SINCE HE COMMITTED A TERRORIST ATTACK HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. YOU CAN THANK OBAMA FOR THAT. Which it makes the OP pretty much correct.

At least you’re consistent in contributing nothing of value.

I suggest you read the NDAA 2012 and 2013 how can you lie like that?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Are you or have you ever been a police officer?
If not shut the hell up.
Before obama signed the NDAA if you were being detained and question by the police you had to be mirandized, if you were not the information obtained could not be used against you in a court of law, and that could be the information that makes or brakes the case.
So jake stop it you do not know what you are talking about.

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

However, even ‘enemy combatants’ retain basic due process rights. See: Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Rendering the OP premise even more idiotic.

Thank you for pointing that case out. It was an important one. My question is was anything changed in the Patriot Act that allowed for this to happen? See Secret Evidence in the War on Terror, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1962 (2005). Discussing that despite the ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, citizen enemy combatants do not always receive proper due process. And if American citizens aren't always allowed proper due process, how can we expect foreign nationals to receive proper due process?

All I am saying is when the US government deems you an enemy combatant, they will basically treat you like a prisoner of war, who has no rights. Even though this has been fought over in the Supreme Court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually it was in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles when the public safety exception was allowed. I do not think Obama was President in 1984. Furthermore, under the USA PATRIOT Act if a person is deemed and "enemy combatant," then they relinquish any rights that WOULD have been afforded to him. Don't think Obama had anything to do with that either.

However, even ‘enemy combatants’ retain basic due process rights. See: Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Rendering the OP premise even more idiotic.

I'll remind you under that law that obama signed called the NDAA 2012 SINCE HE COMMITTED A TERRORIST ATTACK HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. YOU CAN THANK OBAMA FOR THAT. Which it makes the OP pretty much correct.

yep.

They can take him to trial, lose, and still hold him forever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

However, even ‘enemy combatants’ retain basic due process rights. See: Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Rendering the OP premise even more idiotic.

I'll remind you under that law that obama signed called the NDAA 2012 SINCE HE COMMITTED A TERRORIST ATTACK HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. YOU CAN THANK OBAMA FOR THAT. Which it makes the OP pretty much correct.

yep.

They can take him to trial, lose, and still hold him forever.

According to jones I add nothing of value.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Not in North Carolina I spent two years as a police officer in that state. I know the law especially during that period of time.

Congrats on being a cop in NC for 2 years. That still does not change the fact that under the USA PATRIOT Act, anyone who has been deemed an "enemy combatant" does not get afforded the rights as a normal citizen would. One of the great parts of the Law (sarcasm). AND if the government believes that you were part of a cell, and there is still a danger out there, then they can use the public safety exception, for which they do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. I am not talking about the way it "used to be." I am talking about the way it is now, in 2013.

Slow down you're bouncing all through the years. You went from 1984 at the light of speed to the year 2002 You're addressing one situation with another. Neither are the same.

My reasoning for mentioning the 1984 case is that it set a precedent that allowed Miranda Rights to not be read to suspects under arrest. Then I moved to today's times, mainly after 9/11 when all the terrorist legislation started to be passed, i.e the USA PATRIOT Act. Sorry I had to jump a little in time, but there were no landmark cases in between. The landmark cases didn't start happening again until after 2001.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congrats on being a cop in NC for 2 years. That still does not change the fact that under the USA PATRIOT Act, anyone who has been deemed an "enemy combatant" does not get afforded the rights as a normal citizen would. One of the great parts of the Law (sarcasm). AND if the government believes that you were part of a cell, and there is still a danger out there, then they can use the public safety exception, for which they do not have to read you your Miranda Rights. I am not talking about the way it "used to be." I am talking about the way it is now, in 2013.

Slow down you're bouncing all through the years. You went from 1984 at the light of speed to the year 2002 You're addressing one situation with another. Neither are the same.

My reasoning for mentioning the 1984 case is that it set a precedent that allowed Miranda Rights to not be read to suspects under arrest. Then I moved to today's times, mainly after 9/11 when all the terrorist legislation started to be passed, i.e the USA PATRIOT Act. Sorry I had to jump a little in time, but there were no landmark cases in between. The landmark cases didn't start happening again until after 2001.

My reasoning for mentioning the 1984 case is that it set a precedent that allowed Miranda Rights to not be read to suspects under arrest.

No that was not your reason, because if it was you would not have end your post with just that case

Nevertheless, anyone that did not have their rights advised to them that information could not be used against them in a court of law.
Now the second part of what you are trying to join with the other deals with people who have been deem terrorist according to the NDAA 2012 and 2013 they do not have any rights.

OK let's separate the two
If you are not deemed a terrorist you get to be mirandized
If you are deemed a terrorist you lose that right.
Are we clear now?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

I'll remind you under that law that obama signed called the NDAA 2012 SINCE HE COMMITTED A TERRORIST ATTACK HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. YOU CAN THANK OBAMA FOR THAT. Which it makes the OP pretty much correct.

At least you’re consistent in contributing nothing of value.

I suggest you read the NDAA 2012 and 2013 how can you lie like that?

Actually, here is a little fun fact about the NDAA 2012 that most people (like you) get wrong:

A large factual gap has formed between what is being said about the bill and what provisions the bill actually contains. The shared passion for our freedom has exacerbated this gap, as third-party voices like the ALCU and even some members of Congress have committed themselves to defeating controversial provisions that do not exist.

I would never support legislation that granted the government authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. without the right to challenge the legality of any such detention through a petition for habeas corpus. Nor would any judge, court, or attorney in this nation uphold such an infringement of our rights.

To be clear, Section 1021 in no way infringes upon a U.S. citizen’s right to due process.

This legislation does not make any changes to existing law as it relates to the treatment of U.S. citizens. The rules of war draw a distinct line between combatants and non-combatants. Our laws also provide a legal distinction between lawful combatants, those who wear a military uniform and abide by the Law of Armed Conflict, and unlawful combatants who seek to use the freedoms of a democratic society to their advantage. Sadly, a few of those unlawful combatants have been U.S. citizens, who took part in planning attacks against the U.S.

Read more:
Don?t believe the rumors about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act | The Daily Caller

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slow down you're bouncing all through the years. You went from 1984 at the light of speed to the year 2002 You're addressing one situation with another. Neither are the same.

My reasoning for mentioning the 1984 case is that it set a precedent that allowed Miranda Rights to not be read to suspects under arrest. Then I moved to today's times, mainly after 9/11 when all the terrorist legislation started to be passed, i.e the USA PATRIOT Act. Sorry I had to jump a little in time, but there were no landmark cases in between. The landmark cases didn't start happening again until after 2001.

My reasoning for mentioning the 1984 case is that it set a precedent that allowed Miranda Rights to not be read to suspects under arrest.

No that was not your reason, because if it was you would not have end your post with just that case

Nevertheless, anyone that did not have their rights advised to them that information could not be used against them in a court of law.
Now the second part of what you are trying to join with the other deals with people who have been deem terrorist according to the NDAA 2012 and 2013 they do not have any rights.

OK let's separate the two
If you are not deemed a terrorist you get to be mirandized
If you are deemed a terrorist you lose that right.
Are we clear now?

You are confused, bigrebnc, as to what the feds are up to. They won't mirandize him now because they are interested in evidence to convict him: they have all the evidence they need. What they want is the Intelligence Information they can acquire from him, and that he can give without hurting himself.

Wanna bet when the Feds get ready to go to court, the Miranda warning will have been done before that happens?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

At least you’re consistent in contributing nothing of value.

I suggest you read the NDAA 2012 and 2013 how can you lie like that?

Actually, here is a little fun fact about the NDAA 2012 that most people (like you) get wrong:

A large factual gap has formed between what is being said about the bill and what provisions the bill actually contains. The shared passion for our freedom has exacerbated this gap, as third-party voices like the ALCU and even some members of Congress have committed themselves to defeating controversial provisions that do not exist.

I would never support legislation that granted the government authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. without the right to challenge the legality of any such detention through a petition for habeas corpus. Nor would any judge, court, or attorney in this nation uphold such an infringement of our rights.

To be clear, Section 1021 in no way infringes upon a U.S. citizen’s right to due process.

This legislation does not make any changes to existing law as it relates to the treatment of U.S. citizens. The rules of war draw a distinct line between combatants and non-combatants. Our laws also provide a legal distinction between lawful combatants, those who wear a military uniform and abide by the Law of Armed Conflict, and unlawful combatants who seek to use the freedoms of a democratic society to their advantage. Sadly, a few of those unlawful combatants have been U.S. citizens, who took part in planning attacks against the U.S.

Read more:
Don?t believe the rumors about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act | The Daily Caller

If any of that was true why did obama feel the need to do a signing statement that said he would not violate the rights of citizens even though the NDAA gives that authority?
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013ndaa.stm_.rel_.pdf.pdf
I've read the 2012 version It says that you and your source are wrong.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Lets see if i can make sense out of this.

First off because he is a US Citizen and his Federal crime was committed in the USA then he should and I believe will be tried in Federal court.

Miranda rights can be withheld for several reasons. First because he can't understand them right now, obviously.

And then because they need to question him about other people and other explosives that may be set already. They don't have to ask him about anything that has already happened until later, but they need to question him as soon as possible about connections and continuing threats....

Then they can read him his Miranda and ask him about his asshole brother and himself.......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My reasoning for mentioning the 1984 case is that it set a precedent that allowed Miranda Rights to not be read to suspects under arrest. Then I moved to today's times, mainly after 9/11 when all the terrorist legislation started to be passed, i.e the USA PATRIOT Act. Sorry I had to jump a little in time, but there were no landmark cases in between. The landmark cases didn't start happening again until after 2001.

My reasoning for mentioning the 1984 case is that it set a precedent that allowed Miranda Rights to not be read to suspects under arrest.

No that was not your reason, because if it was you would not have end your post with just that case

Nevertheless, anyone that did not have their rights advised to them that information could not be used against them in a court of law.
Now the second part of what you are trying to join with the other deals with people who have been deem terrorist according to the NDAA 2012 and 2013 they do not have any rights.

OK let's separate the two
If you are not deemed a terrorist you get to be mirandized
If you are deemed a terrorist you lose that right.
Are we clear now?

You are confused, bigrebnc, as to what the feds are up to. They won't mirandize him now because they are interested in evidence to convict him: they have all the evidence they need. What they want is the Intelligence Information they can acquire from him, and that he can give without hurting himself.

Wanna bet when the Feds get ready to go to court, the Miranda warning will have been done before that happens?

You do not know what you are talking about.