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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wrong.

He can demand a lawyer at any point, despite your absurd understanding of the law. He can also refuse to say anything, and the government cannot do a damn thing about it.

Is this really true though? I know that he can remain silent because that is a natural ability but if he lawyers up do they actually have to provide one before they continue? It seems to me that he has no right of counsel until they actually put this to court and that during this time period they would not have to observe the demand.

Unless they invoke the NDAA he has a right to counsel even if he is not arrested. The tricky part is that, until he is charged, he has to pay for it himself.

 

[mamooth]

Obama does not have the legal right to murder whoever he wants.

He sure as hell does, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. Read the AUMF.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html
---
IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
---

There aren't any "no drones" or "no US citizens" or "has to be in combat" clauses. Any president can now legally (at least by USA law) kill damn well whoever he pleases, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. So voted congress.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama does not have the legal right to murder whoever he wants.

He sure as hell does, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. Read the AUMF.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html
---
IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
---

There aren't any "no drones" or "no US citizens" or "has to be in combat" clauses. Any president can now legally (at least by USA law) kill damn well whoever he pleases, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. So voted congress.

That's actually a pretty narrow scope. The reality is that Congress and the media allows Obama to execute powers he does not have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, he can, being that Congress directly voted to give the president such authority.

They did? Perhaps you can cite the actual law that covers that.

However, the White House also said he won't. Very dishonest to leave that little bit out.

Actually, they didn't quite say that, what they said is he does not have the authority to do so.

Interesting tactic, calling someone dishonest while misrepresenting something yourself.

What is it that you Republitarians find so upsetting? That a Republican congress voted to give Bush those powers, or that Obama said he won't use them?

It's good to be a liberal, being I don't have TheParty ordering me to flipflop. Most liberals were fine with Bush doing targeted killings. The Nader/Kucinich fringe wasn't, but that group has been attacking Obama even more savagely than they attacked Bush. The consistent part is the consistency of each individual liberal.

That explains why you are screaming about the way Obama is ignoring the law by not reading the Miranda warning as soon as they arrested Tsarinov.

In contrast, the conservatives are a-flippin' and a-floppin' like a fish in the boat. Not a peep of protest when Bush did it, but now all in a tizzy because they suddenly realized Obama has the same powers.

Feel free to go back and read all the posts I made supporting Bush.

Wait, I didn't make any.

If you Republitarians are so concerned about targeted killings, pressure Congress to vote on a new AUMF, to rewrite the old one and restrict the president's power. Or just continue to wail how awful it is. That is, until a Republican president takes office, at which time you'll all instantly forget how awful it is.

What makes you think he is a Republican?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama does not have the legal right to murder whoever he wants.

He sure as hell does, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. Read the AUMF.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html
---
IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
---

There aren't any "no drones" or "no US citizens" or "has to be in combat" clauses. Any president can now legally (at least by USA law) kill damn well whoever he pleases, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. So voted congress.

He does not, read the Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a 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 bimbs, 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 proceedure. 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.

A day of sanity from QW. Well done.

The public safety exception clearly applied to an imminent threat. I have seen nothing that shows the officers lives were in danger and that they should withhold his Miranda Rights.

And if you're gonna lecture me about shit then perhaps you should know what the fuck you're droning on about.

Let it be noted that the Great Gasbag supports terrorism.

 

[Ravi]

First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a 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 bimbs, 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 proceedure. 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.

A day of sanity from QW. Well done.

I promise not to let it happen too often.

I appreciate that.

 

[g5000]

Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 died with Obama's NDAA, where have you been?

Oh so did Hab Corpus.

Wow. Inventing history now, eh?

Ever hear of a guy named George W. Bush?

That's who this shit started with. Obama RENEWED Bush's NDAA.

Allow me to refresh your incredibly short memory:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/15656

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html

And now, a Fox News flashback:

One day after the very first detainee from Guantanamo Bay was transferred to New York City to stand trial, we are now learning some shocking news thanks to The Weekly Standard.

According to Congressman Mike Rogers — who serves on the House Intelligence Committee — the Obama administration is now requiring FBI agents to read Miranda rights to captured terrorists.

The italics were Fox News' emphasis. The Right was outraged at the idea of Mirandizing bad guys.

That BASTARD OBAMA is reading MIRANDA RIGHTS TO TERRORISTS!!!!!

"SHOCKING NEWS"!

That fucker read them their RIGHTS? And brought them to TRIAL? Are you KIDDING ME?!?!

 

[Misty]

Obama does not have the legal right to murder whoever he wants.

He sure as hell does, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. Read the AUMF.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html
---IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
---There aren't any "no drones" or "no US citizens" or "has to be in combat" clauses. Any president can now legally (at least by USA law) kill damn well whoever he pleases, so long as he ties it to Islamic terrorism. So voted congress.

That's actually a pretty narrow scope. The reality is that Congress and the media allows Obama to execute powers he does not have.

And this point really makes me wonder why? Why is Obama getting no flack for anything he does?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because Congress, SCOTUS, and the great majority of the public realize that what BHO is doing is not illegal by American law. Unsavory, perhaps, not illegal, though.

 

[g5000]

The public safety exception clearly applied to an imminent threat. I have seen nothing that shows the officers lives were in danger and that they should withhold his Miranda Rights.

And if you're gonna lecture me about shit then perhaps you should know what the fuck you're droning on about.

The FBI needed to know if the brothers had planted any more bombs around the city. That certainly qualifies as an imminent threat.

As soon as they were/are satisfied there are no more bombs, they must read him his Miranda rights.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

You are equating procedures for notifiying a person of their rights, with the rights themselves.

It should be obvious that the exception precludes anything said from being used in the trial against the accused bomber. Consequently, his rights are fully protected.

 

[bripat9643]

Because Congress, SCOTUS, and the great majority of the public realize that what BHO is doing is not illegal by American law. Unsavory, perhaps, not illegal, though.

They "realize" precisely the opposite, but they just don't care.

 

[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.

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.

Look man I've already crushed your ass......I'm consistant, I dont blame Obama for it, but you guys would call Bush a NAZI, facist anything.....because you loooove the Miranda rights....hell you'd rather see murders go free...if they werent read those....and I say Miranda is bs.......to begin with......

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The public safety exception clearly applied to an imminent threat. I have seen nothing that shows the officers lives were in danger and that they should withhold his Miranda Rights.

And if you're gonna lecture me about shit then perhaps you should know what the fuck you're droning on about.

The FBI needed to know if the brothers had planted any more bombs around the city. That certainly qualifies as an imminent threat.

As soon as they were/are satisfied there are no more bombs, they must read him his Miranda rights.

On that basis, nobody should be given Miranda rights on a battlefield.

 

[Politico]

How does this website KNOW whether or not the kid was read his rights?



I see nothing in this article that supports the notion that they KNOW what happened.

Umm cause the cops said they didn't.

Derp..

It does NOT say that in the link, lad.

That link contradicts itself.

WHO SAID the cops did not read him his rights?

The author does not tell us.

He asserts the fact but does not tell us who told him that fact.

Typical of propaganda...

I don't give a crap what the link says. The cops didn't read him his rights.

 

[kaz]

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

Yes, he can, being that Congress directly voted to give the president such authority.

Actually due process is in the Constitution. Which means congress does not have the power to give him that authority. You'd grasp that if W were still President.

However, the White House also said he won't. Very dishonest to leave that little bit out.

Actually the whole controversy started when his administration refused to rule it out. Leaving that part out is what's dishonest.

What is it that you Republitarians find so upsetting? That a Republican congress voted to give Bush those powers, or that Obama said he won't use them?

I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian.

It's good to be a liberal, being I don't have TheParty ordering me to flipflop

I'm going to get a glass of water and drink it and re-read it so I can spit it out laughing hilariously. The difference between liberal rules for W and Obama is the greatest double standard I've ever seen in the left. And that's a high hurdle. That you're such a drone you can't see that and actually claim the opposite is beyond belief. What is consistent are my rules for both. Which include due process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because Congress, SCOTUS, and the great majority of the public realize that what BHO is doing is not illegal by American law. Unsavory, perhaps, not illegal, though.

They "realize" precisely the opposite, but they just don't care.

Your opinion, bripat, is not evidence for what you believe. No, the American people do not feel as you do at all, except in a small minority.

You hate government. We get that. But . . . governments will always operate.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Because Congress, SCOTUS, and the great majority of the public realize that what BHO is doing is not illegal by American law. Unsavory, perhaps, not illegal, though.

They "realize" precisely the opposite, but they just don't care.

Your opinion, bripat, is not evidence for what you believe. No, the American people do not feel as you do at all, except in a small minority.

You hate government. We get that. But . . . governments will always operate.

This is typical far left reactionary nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They "realize" precisely the opposite, but they just don't care.

Your opinion, bripat, is not evidence for what you believe. No, the American people do not feel as you do at all, except in a small minority.

You hate government. We get that. But . . . governments will always operate.

This is typical far left reactionary nonsense.

That governments will always operate is lefty? If that is so, you must be so far right that bigreb looks like a liberal to you. Quit being silly.