So, now liberals don't believe in the 5th and 6th ammendment either?

[kaz]

Miranda was a classic case of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, there is no basis for it in the Constitution. However, I agree with you that it should not be pick and choose suspect by suspect. Realistically though anyone with a TV knows it by heart.

From Amendment V:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Translation: You have the right to remain silent.

From Amendment VI

"...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence...."

Translation: You have the right to an attorney.

The issue in Miranda v. Arizona is that it allows for free counsel to indigents in all criminal cases regardless of the severity of the crime. Gideon v. Wainwright allowed for counsel to indigents in all felony trials. The VI Amendment only states that a person has a right to an attorney but the two cases I cited follow up and state that a person is entitled to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.

That was my quote, not the GreatGatsby.

None of these points are relevant, there is no logical flow to the point.

Not having Miranda does not remove the right to silence or an attorney.

The Constitution does not say you should be informed by the police of your rights or that you are entitled to a free attorney.

If you want those, have them passed in a Constitutional way, don't have the Supreme Court decree them in a judicial fiat from the bench.

 

[Misty]

Think for a second. We as Americans are losing rights left and right, pun. Lol

The guy is citizen. He has constitutional rights.

And the whole search every home without a warrant was a violation as well. Not to mention making people stay inside.

Searching and feeling up children at airports.

All of these are clear infringements on our personal freedoms.

The phone tapping, again another infringement on our privacy.

Chip chip chip. And we are letting it happen out of fear. We've let these terrorists take away our freedoms.

I understand they want info from this guy but Obama wanted to give rights to actually non citizen terrorists yet he is waiving those with this guy?

It's a valid point.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I want someone to show me exactly where the "Exceptions" rule is in the Constitution.

I can't find it.

Lefitists merely declare a thing legal and it is so.

They have that in common with Mohammad.

 

[bripat9643]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.

Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

There is no "Miranda law." It's a supreme court decision. There's no mention of any "public safety exemption" in the decision.

 

[Ringel05]

Think for a second. We as Americans are losing rights left and right, pun. Lol

The guy is citizen. He has constitutional rights.

And the whole search every home without a warrant was a violation as well. Not to mention making people stay inside.

Searching and feeling up children at airports.

All of these are clear infringements on our personal freedoms.

The phone tapping, again another infringement on our privacy.

Chip chip chip. And we are letting it happen out of fear. We've let these terrorists take away our freedoms.

I understand they want info from this guy but Obama wanted to give rights to actually non citizen terrorists yet he is waiving those with this guy?

It's a valid point.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=police%20authority%20law%20in%20emergencies%20&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mass.gov%2Feohhs%2Fdocs%2Fdph%2Fcdc%2Freporting%2Fiq-community-caretaking-function.rtf&ei=QcxyUaeWB4qprQGjrIGQBg&usg=AFQjCNFvbivXCvI_OFskF2uQ1S6SbY1avA&bvm=bv.45512109,d.aWM&cad=rja

 

[MondoBongo]

Miranda was a classic case of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, there is no basis for it in the Constitution. However, I agree with you that it should not be pick and choose suspect by suspect. Realistically though anyone with a TV knows it by heart.

From Amendment V:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Translation: You have the right to remain silent.

From Amendment VI

"...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence...."

Translation: You have the right to an attorney.

The issue in Miranda v. Arizona is that it allows for free counsel to indigents in all criminal cases regardless of the severity of the crime. Gideon v. Wainwright allowed for counsel to indigents in all felony trials. The VI Amendment only states that a person has a right to an attorney but the two cases I cited follow up and state that a person is entitled to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.

That was my quote, not the GreatGatsby.

None of these points are relevant, there is no logical flow to the point.

Not having Miranda does not remove the right to silence or an attorney.

The Constitution does not say you should be informed by the police of your rights or that you are entitled to a free attorney.

If you want those, have them passed in a Constitutional way, don't have the Supreme Court decree them in a judicial fiat from the bench.

I know that. But cases specifically interpreting the constitution do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's fun to watch the reactionaries flip their values on behalf of the surviving bomber like they have now that they support North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

Not giving him a Miranda warning means that whatever he says can't be used against him, so no rights are being violated.

I think the feds may believe he is mortally wounded and may die before talking.

 

[kaz]

From Amendment V:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Translation: You have the right to remain silent.

From Amendment VI

"...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence...."

Translation: You have the right to an attorney.

The issue in Miranda v. Arizona is that it allows for free counsel to indigents in all criminal cases regardless of the severity of the crime. Gideon v. Wainwright allowed for counsel to indigents in all felony trials. The VI Amendment only states that a person has a right to an attorney but the two cases I cited follow up and state that a person is entitled to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.

That was my quote, not the GreatGatsby.

None of these points are relevant, there is no logical flow to the point.

Not having Miranda does not remove the right to silence or an attorney.

The Constitution does not say you should be informed by the police of your rights or that you are entitled to a free attorney.

If you want those, have them passed in a Constitutional way, don't have the Supreme Court decree them in a judicial fiat from the bench.

I know that. But cases specifically interpreting the constitution do.

And those cases are what I said, they are legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court has no actual power to implement law. They illegally seized it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.

Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.

Conservatives are at least consistent in their ignorance.

As already noted in other failed threads on the same topic from the right:

There are no Miranda ‘rights,’ there is the Miranda Warning.

And Dzhokar Tsaranev still retains his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate; he can keep his mouth shut and not say a word to investigators from the outset. He retains his 6th Amendment right to counsel, and will be afforded representation if he is unable to afford it.

The issue is admissibility only, not the ability to exercise a given right.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I think the Miranda laws are stupid to begin with, I just think it's funny how liberals abandon them when it suits their needs.

 

[kaz]

I think the Miranda laws are stupid to begin with, I just think it's funny how liberals abandon them when it suits their needs.

So true.

Obama can give the order to murder an American on American soil who is not an imminent threat to anyone with a drone. Check.

Someone who blows up bombs with nails and ball bearings on a public street doesn't need to be told they don't have to speak. What? No way!

I wonder if Obama can order a Muslim be killed with a drone, probably not. Just a white male.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.

Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.

Conservatives are at least consistent in their ignorance.

As already noted in other failed threads on the same topic from the right:

There are no Miranda ‘rights,’ there is the Miranda Warning.

And Dzhokar Tsaranev still retains his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate; he can keep his mouth shut and not say a word to investigators from the outset. He retains his 6th Amendment right to counsel, and will be afforded representation if he is unable to afford it.

The issue is admissibility only, not the ability to exercise a given right.

Oh wait, so now Miranda rights are pliable....I see.....OMG if Bush had done this, you'd be screaming your head off.....and like I said, I think the Miranda ruling is bs to begin with, so I'm not bitching about it, talk about consistancy......you have none.....

 

[bripat9643]

It's fun to watch the reactionaries flip their values on behalf of the surviving bomber like they have now that they support North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

Not giving him a Miranda warning means that whatever he says can't be used against him, so no rights are being violated.

I think the feds may believe he is mortally wounded and may die before talking.

You're a boot-licking Nazi moron. Not giving him the Miranda warning means they have violated his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. It's not optional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's fun to watch the reactionaries flip their values on behalf of the surviving bomber like they have now that they support North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

Not giving him a Miranda warning means that whatever he says can't be used against him, so no rights are being violated.

I think the feds may believe he is mortally wounded and may die before talking.

You're a boot-licking Nazi moron. Not giving him the Miranda warning means they have violated his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. It's not optional.

Sure it is, friend. The failure to mirandize simply means if the subject talks, nothing can be used against him. http://www.caselaw4cops.net/articles/miranda.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

I want someone to show me exactly where the "Exceptions" rule is in the Constitution.

I can't find it.

Lefitists merely declare a thing legal and it is so.

They have that in common with Mohammad.

Why don't you tell us where the exception to 'freedom of the press' is written in the Constitution,

the one that makes it consitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Quote us that exception from the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.

Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

There is no "Miranda law." It's a supreme court decision. There's no mention of any "public safety exemption" in the decision.

Supreme Court decisions are constitutional law. Or case law. The public safety exemption was established in another court case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.

Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

There is no "Miranda law." It's a supreme court decision. There's no mention of any "public safety exemption" in the decision.

Supreme Court decisions are constitutional law. Or case law. The public safety exemption was established in another court case.

Correct.

And the DOJ’s interpretation of that ruling is perfectly valid until a Federal court rules otherwise.

Tsaranev is also at liberty to challenge the DOJ’s interpretation if he believes his civil liberties were in any way violated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.

Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.

First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where the police stopped a man they suspected of a crime, and found an empty shoulder holster, and asked him where the gun was. The thinking was a clear example of the imminent danger to the public outweighed the requirement for a warning. Since these guys actually set of bombs, and even threw some during the pursuit, there is a clear danger to the public, which actually falls into precedent.

Besides, he can still refuse to answer.

New York v. Quarles | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Second, unless they are actually interrogating him with the intent to use what he says at trial there is nothing anywhere that requires a Miranda warning. They can sit back and question him as much as they want, and even question him while he is under the influence of drugs and cannot legally waive his rights, as long as they do not use it in court.

If you want to gripe about rights you should at least know what you are talking about. Personally, being a guy that wants to make it as hard as possible for the government to prosecute someone, I have absolutely no problem with either procedure. If there is a genuine possibility of danger to others the government should be able to question a suspect without telling him he can shut up, and use anything he says against him. They should also be able to ask him questions if they do not intend to use anything he says against him, even if he invokes his right to remain silent and asks for a lawyer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.

Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.

Um..remember when you folks held up the "Ticking time bomb" exception?

Well this is it.

Well, that was when a republican was president – which makes a world of difference.

This is yet another failed and partisan attempt by the right to contrive a controversy where none exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What You Need To Know About Why The Boston Bombing Suspect Hasn't Been Read His Miranda Rights

Your link is mostly right, but got a couple of things wrong. First, there is no such thing as Miranda rights, there is a Miranda Warning that is required if they intend to question him and use that evidence at trial. There is absolutely no requirement anywhere that a suspect ever be given the Miranda warning if he is not questioned. In federal court the only time limitation they actually face is Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I believe the judge who does this generally advises anyone brought before them of Miranda, but I do not know if they are required to. Being that he is currently in the hospital, and cannot be brought before a judge, that has some flexibility, the real question is how much. They can easily avoid that by letting Boston PD have him for while, going through the process of getting an indictment, and then bringing him into federal custody.

Alternatively, they can use the NDAA to hold him, ask him whatever they want, and then charge him in federal court. Obama did issue a signing statement that he would never use that power, but he has never had a problem ignoring what he has said before.