DOJ: No Miranda rights

[IlarMeilyr]

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.......

Not exactly. It's more basic.

We make the mistake of treating his action's as merely criminal, and it then follows that we are obliged to "try" him for those "crimes."

He gets the same legal rights as any other accused person. Thus, before he is to be questioned, he is supposed to get Miranda warnings. BUT, just as there are OTHER criminal defendants who MAY not need to get Miranda warnings before being questioned, so too a shitwad like this terrorist scumbag MIGHT fit under one of the exceptions.

I think it might be difficult to pump that bastard for information without having him implicate himself in the commission of the "crime." And that MIGHT result in a court ruling suppressing his statements as possible evidence which the Government can use against him at his trial.

I'm cool with that. I say that we seem to have more than enough information to convict his filthy as many times over already even if none of his words can ever be used in evidence against him.

Meanwhile, question him hard. Get every scrap of information needed to be as sure as possible that neither he nor any possible cohorts have or had any plans for any other terrorist acts. But "you have a right to remain silent" is NOT something he should be told or which should even be true in his case.

"Scumbag, you have the right to tell us exactly what we need to know or we will fuck you up! You have the right to remain dead. If you do so desire and cannot afford one, a coroner may be appointed for you" (See the movie "Running Scared.")

 

[WethePeopleUS]

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.

Whatever you say chief

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution" | Democracy Now!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Fakey has not the first damn clue.

The ONLY possible downside to NOT giving that cock-bite his "Miranda warnings" is that whatever he says in reply to custodial interrogation MAY not be admissible in evidence against him at his trial. So fucking what?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

If this NDAA 2012 is such a clear gross violation of our rights, how did the House Judiciary Committee pass it, then the House and the Senate pass it? Is it going before Judicial Review in the Supreme Court if it is such a violation of our rights? Nothing in that bill undermined current and existing laws for US citizens.

How does anything get passed? How did obama tax get passed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Fakey has not the first damn clue.

The ONLY possible downside to NOT giving that cock-bite his "Miranda warnings" is that whatever he says in reply to custodial interrogation MAY not be admissible in evidence against him at his trial. So fucking what?

Jakes drunk he once said we both were saying the same thing and was shown he was wrong and now he's just disagreeing to disagree. Not that his imput matters one way or the other.

Now wait for it.....wait for it.......... Here it comes...........

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You do not know what you are talking about.

Fakey has not the first damn clue.

The ONLY possible downside to NOT giving that cock-bite his "Miranda warnings" is that whatever he says in reply to custodial interrogation MAY not be admissible in evidence against him at his trial. So fucking what?

Jakes drunk he once said we both were saying the same thing and was shown he was wrong and now he's just disagreeing to disagree. Not that his imput matters one way or the other.

Now wait for it.....wait for it.......... Here it comes...........

I just can't wait.

REACTIONARY!

<<squawk!>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution" | Democracy Now!

Daniel Ellsberg, one of the great lefties of the Vietnam Era. How funny: Ellsberg and bigrebnc, together, finally at last.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is some basic reading for a very confused bigrebnc as to what is going on.

Next for Boston suspect: 5 legal questions - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution" | Democracy Now!

Daniel Ellsberg, one of the great lefties of the Vietnam Era. How funny: Ellsberg and bigrebnc, together, finally at last.

Regardless of his political leanings he sees something wrong with those acts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is some basic reading for a very confused bigrebnc as to what is going on.

Next for Boston suspect: 5 legal questions - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

you can disagree all you want that is your right however that doesn't make you right just remember that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is some basic reading for a very confused bigrebnc as to what is going on.

Next for Boston suspect: 5 legal questions - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

you can disagree all you want that is your right however that doesn't make you right just remember that.

You are the one disagreeing, bigrebnc, and generally confused about this. Go ahead and read it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fakey.

Prove that YOU are not terminally confused.

Just provide your most straightforward answer. Try for accuracy.

What IS the consequence, in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, of NOT giving the surviving scumbag terrorist brother, Dzhokhar, his "Miranda" warnings?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is some basic reading for a very confused bigrebnc as to what is going on.

Next for Boston suspect: 5 legal questions - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

you can disagree all you want that is your right however that doesn't make you right just remember that.

You are the one disagreeing, bigrebnc, and generally confused about this. Go ahead and read it.

Unlike you I know the law.

 

[Yurt]

jakey still can't understand this simple concept and it is even from his link:

If a court found that Tsarnaev was not read his Miranda rights, the usual consequence would be that any statements he made prior to being read his rights could not be admitted at trial. However, prosecutors might not need such statements if they have overwhelming evidence of Tsarnaev&#8217;s guilt.

Read more: Next for Boston suspect: 5 legal questions - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

 

[Connery]

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

Not true, let me explain how this actually works.

The police arrest someone, and start asking him questions with the intent of using what he says against him. He actually asks for an attorney, so the police reach out and find him one, and then continue to question him in the presence of his attorney.

Another scenario, the police arrest a guy, like Tsarnev, who might have have planted a bomb somewhere. The police are perfectly free to ask him about that, and continue asking, even if he asks for an attorney. What they cannot do is force him to answer.

Why is this so hard?

Bottom line windbag...

• "You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop.
• You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop."

Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning - FindLaw




In this situation the the public safety exception applies, and purportedly is being used.

 

[Ragnar]

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

Not true, let me explain how this actually works.

The police arrest someone, and start asking him questions with the intent of using what he says against him. He actually asks for an attorney, so the police reach out and find him one, and then continue to question him in the presence of his attorney.

Another scenario, the police arrest a guy, like Tsarnev, who might have have planted a bomb somewhere. The police are perfectly free to ask him about that, and continue asking, even if he asks for an attorney. What they cannot do is force him to answer.

Why is this so hard?

Bottom line windbag...

• "You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop.
• You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop."

Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning - FindLaw




In this situation the the public safety exception applies, and purportedly is being used.

Yes. Being used more broadly than it ever has been before. Being used by President Obama's DOJ giving broader powers to the state over American citizens in a method not yet exposed to the legal system (w/o president). All indications so far are that this case will be tried in civilian court (as maybe it should be) and it's implications will affect all future cases of this kind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Except it didn't. The court never required Miranda warnings for everyone that is arrested.

 

[Flopper]

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?

I abhor Indefinite detention without trial: Section 1021 of NDAA 2012 as well a number of items in the Patriot Act, however I really don't see any alternative if we are to stop terrorist. These laws take exception to amendments in the Bill of Rights. How they are used will differentiate us from our enemies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I have a dilemma, should I believe a wackadoodle column written by a guy that is part of the government that wants to lock people up without any legal recourse, or a federal judge?

I will go with the judge that ruled that section 1021 is facially unconstitutional.

The NDAA's section 1021 coup d'etat foiled | Naomi Wolf | Law | guardian.co.uk