Tsarnaev will be questioned immediately without having Miranda rights issued to him

[Wry Catcher]

Article I, sec. 9, clause 2 states in part: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion ... the public Safety may require it.

It seems this is a case of rebellion*** on the party of the surviving Naturalized US Citizen; I believe the Justice Dept. is acting legally in suspending Habeas Corpus for we do not know, and cannot know until he is interviewed/interrorated, if he and his brother acted alone.

***such a ruling might expand the legal definition of "Rebellion"; given that terrorist acts created an exigent response to what has become a concern to the security of our nation's citizenry I believe such is necessary.

For what it's worth, I also believe the surviving murderer ought to be tried in the US Trial Court and if convicted that he not be executed but sentenced to life without the possibility of parole at ADX Florence, Americas most secure prison. There he will spend 23 hours, 7 days a week of his remaining natural life in a the cell depicted in the following link.

The World?s Most Secure Prison: ADX Florence | Sometimes Interesting

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their Miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

I hope Satan ordered that new fur coat, he's going to need it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People,

The last time I looked, the Constitution didn't have any "exceptions" written in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps I am wrong. if so, will someone please quote that part of the Constitution which has the "Exceptions" written in it?

Do you believe that the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment makes it unconstitutional to make child pornography against the law?

If your answer is 'no', show me where in the Bill of Rights that 'exception' is written,

and if you can't, then explain to us how that 'exception' can exist without being written in the Bill of Rights,

which is the sum total of the basis of your argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People,

The last time I looked, the Constitution didn't have any "exceptions" written in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps I am wrong. if so, will someone please quote that part of the Constitution which has the "Exceptions" written in it?

Do you believe that the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment makes it unconstitutional to make child pornography against the law?

If your answer is 'no', show me where in the Bill of Rights that 'exception' is written,

and if you can't, then explain to us how that 'exception' can exist without being written in the Bill of Rights,

which is the sum total of the basis of your argument.

gun grabbers in the anti gun fest have crossed over the line of sane to insane.
They have become irrelevant and their first amendment right to free speech invalidated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

i don't care what he has done, every suspect needs to have their miranda rights read to them.
I hope he raises this issue when the case goes to court.

i hope satan ordered that new fur coat, he's going to need it.

xxxxxxx

 

[Freewill]

You might not embarass yourself if you googled before you posted.

There is a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement that was established by the SCOTUS in 1984 in New York v. Quarles.

Yippee another liberal on his high horse. As is usual for liberals you answer a question not asked and you do it so sanctimoniously. The OP is all about the exception that was the point of the discussion. I never once made the claim their wasn't an exception nor did I say I totally disagreed. But the Miranda warning does spell out for the person their rights which is what Jake said didn't exist. BTW I did google it to make sure I was right as I almost always do.

Knocking two liberals off their high horse in one day, life is gooooooooooooooooooooood.

Oh, so someone else using your account said this?

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Stop being an asshole. Stop lying about what you said when it's there in black and white a few posts earlier.

WTF are you babbling about? I am perfectly consistent. There are two exception to the Mirada warning. One is the one where the SCOTUS has ruled and that is fairly narrow. If a cop asks a person where their gun is while being arrested. That pretty much is the only time. The second is the one ginned up by Holder alone. I don't really see where I lied about anything nor am not consistent. But considering you have Jake the Fake backing you I feel a whole lot better.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freewill continues flabble and babble, lie and deny.

Folks like him make it easy to demonstrate how unAmerican the far reactionary fringe right.

The death wail of the far right continues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yippee another liberal on his high horse. As is usual for liberals you answer a question not asked and you do it so sanctimoniously. The OP is all about the exception that was the point of the discussion. I never once made the claim their wasn't an exception nor did I say I totally disagreed. But the Miranda warning does spell out for the person their rights which is what Jake said didn't exist. BTW I did google it to make sure I was right as I almost always do.

Knocking two liberals off their high horse in one day, life is gooooooooooooooooooooood.

Oh, so someone else using your account said this?

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Stop being an asshole. Stop lying about what you said when it's there in black and white a few posts earlier.

WTF are you babbling about? I am perfectly consistent. There are two exception to the Mirada warning. One is the one where the SCOTUS has ruled and that is fairly narrow. If a cop asks a person where their gun is while being arrested. That pretty much is the only time. The second is the one ginned up by Holder alone. I don't really see where I lied about anything nor am not consistent. But considering you have Jake the Fake backing you I feel a whole lot better.

You're accusing Obama of eroding someone's rights in regard to this Miranda situation.

Whose rights is he 'eroding'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

People,

The last time I looked, the Constitution didn't have any "exceptions" written in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps I am wrong. if so, will someone please quote that part of the Constitution which has the "Exceptions" written in it?

Do you believe that the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment makes it unconstitutional to make child pornography against the law?

If your answer is 'no', show me where in the Bill of Rights that 'exception' is written,

and if you can't, then explain to us how that 'exception' can exist without being written in the Bill of Rights,

which is the sum total of the basis of your argument.

gun grabbers in the anti gun fest have crossed over the line of sane to insane.
They have become irrelevant and their first amendment right to free speech invalidated.

I have a shiny new quarter for anyone who can explain to me what the fuck this idiot just said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Next we'll be told by the rightwing nuthouse that since this guy was found in a boat,

he has to be tried under maritime law...

...and Obama is a Communist if he doesn't.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Do you believe that the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment makes it unconstitutional to make child pornography against the law?

YES it is unconstitutional, but at the same time you must think for a moment, the sheeple of the United States are armed ....................
............. Look what happened to Larry Flint
If someone was to create and publish a magazine called Under Age Hotties ( Ooooooo )
They would probably get shot.
The government should not have to pay for YOU to have 24/7 personal security.
At the same time the government should not have to pay for the imprisonment of the guy that shot the publisher/owner of Under Age Hotties when the situation can be avoided temporarily, once guns are confiscated, then yea, publish your magazine, it just would not be wise to do so until guns & voting and lawyers & judges have been abolished.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article on the mistake that the DOJ is doing in not reading him his rights.

Former DOJ Attorney Says Gov?t Is Making a Mistake Not Reading Boston Suspect His Miranda Rights ? What You Need to Know | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, so someone else using your account said this?

Don'tja see what is happening? Rights are being eroded every day. Obama takes out Americans in another country without due process without judicial review and it is basically ignored because of the allusion of it makes us safe. Of course we want him to talk and a lawyer would definitely advise him to not say anything. So if they do this anything he says should not be used in a court of law. Not that it matters what he says he is guilty. If I were he though I would admit to everything without being Mirandized. THAT would really test the system.

Stop being an asshole. Stop lying about what you said when it's there in black and white a few posts earlier.

WTF are you babbling about? I am perfectly consistent. There are two exception to the Mirada warning. One is the one where the SCOTUS has ruled and that is fairly narrow. If a cop asks a person where their gun is while being arrested. That pretty much is the only time. The second is the one ginned up by Holder alone. I don't really see where I lied about anything nor am not consistent. But considering you have Jake the Fake backing you I feel a whole lot better.

You're accusing Obama of eroding someone's rights in regard to this Miranda situation.

Whose rights is he 'eroding'?

I'll take the 'no answer' as a 'none' answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is an article on the mistake that the DOJ is doing in not reading him his rights.

Former DOJ Attorney Says Gov?t Is Making a Mistake Not Reading Boston Suspect His Miranda Rights ? What You Need to Know | Video | TheBlaze.com

So what? You found a lawyer with a dissenting opinion. What's the value of that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you believe that the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment makes it unconstitutional to make child pornography against the law?

If your answer is 'no', show me where in the Bill of Rights that 'exception' is written,

and if you can't, then explain to us how that 'exception' can exist without being written in the Bill of Rights,

which is the sum total of the basis of your argument.

gun grabbers in the anti gun fest have crossed over the line of sane to insane.
They have become irrelevant and their first amendment right to free speech invalidated.

I have a shiny new quarter for anyone who can explain to me what the fuck this idiot just said.

I was right you being as gun grabber are so insane you can't comprehend what I posted.

 

[The Professor]

Here is an article on the mistake that the DOJ is doing in not reading him his rights.

Former DOJ Attorney Says Gov?t Is Making a Mistake Not Reading Boston Suspect His Miranda Rights ? What You Need to Know | Video | TheBlaze.com

Great link. I can only hope that those who questioned the guy knew what they are doing. If they screw up, God help them. The danger is that the public safety exception has not been broadly litigated and there are no clear guidelines (in my opinion) regarding the present case.

I would have given the Miranda warnings, but it is too early for me to criticize those who did it a different way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interestingly when Miranda was decided by the SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, it was the conservative wing of the Court that dissented.

Now the rightwing nuthouse is nuts about the Miranda requirement. See how conservatism dies,

slowly but surely?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is an article on the mistake that the DOJ is doing in not reading him his rights.

Former DOJ Attorney Says Gov?t Is Making a Mistake Not Reading Boston Suspect His Miranda Rights ? What You Need to Know | Video | TheBlaze.com

Great link. I can only hope that those who questioned the guy knew what they are doing. If they screw up, God help them. The danger is that the public safety exception has not been broadly litigated and there are no clear guidelines (in my opinion) regarding the present case.

I would have given the Miranda warnings, but it is too early for me to criticize those who did it a different way.

At the very worst, un-Mirandized evidence might get excluded. It doesn't even poison further evidence obtained.

You people are trying too hard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interestingly when Miranda was decided by the SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, it was the conservative wing of the Court that dissented.

Now the rightwing nuthouse is nuts about the Miranda requirement. See how conservatism dies,

slowly but surely?

Do you have any clue what the argument was about?
I don't think you do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interestingly when Miranda was decided by the SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, it was the conservative wing of the Court that dissented.

Now the rightwing nuthouse is nuts about the Miranda requirement. See how conservatism dies,

slowly but surely?

Do you have any clue what the argument was about? I don't think you do.

You are the person who likes XXXXXXX