[lumpster]

Under the Law of War we can hold #Boston suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or appointment of counsel," tweeted SC Senator Lindsay Graham on Friday. His comment provoked a barrage of criticism pointing out that the Boston suspect is an American citizen entitled to constitutional rights.

But in fact, Tsarnaev has not yet been read his Miranda rights.

"We plan to invoke the public safety exception to Miranda," a DOJ official told TPM, "in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence."

The public safety exception is often evoked in terrorism cases. It allows law enforcers to question suspects briefly prior to reading Miranda rights, and use the information obtained in this way in a trial.

Sen. Graham has doubled down, and claims that Tsarnaev should not receive Miranda rights either now or later. He's released a statement with John McCain calling on Obama to have Tsarnaev tried as an enemy under the Law of war.



http://politix.topix.com/homepage/5685- ... -exception" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


He's an American citizen and has his rights McCain and Graham are wrong.. You can't just strip an American of his rights..

[Leroy]

Under the Law of War we can hold #Boston suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or appointment of counsel," tweeted SC Senator Lindsay Graham on Friday. His comment provoked a barrage of criticism pointing out that the Boston suspect is an American citizen entitled to constitutional rights.

But in fact, Tsarnaev has not yet been read his Miranda rights.

"We plan to invoke the public safety exception to Miranda," a DOJ official told TPM, "in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence."

The public safety exception is often evoked in terrorism cases. It allows law enforcers to question suspects briefly prior to reading Miranda rights, and use the information obtained in this way in a trial.

Sen. Graham has doubled down, and claims that Tsarnaev should not receive Miranda rights either now or later. He's released a statement with John McCain calling on Obama to have Tsarnaev tried as an enemy under the Law of war.



http://politix.topix.com/homepage/5685- ... -exception" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


He's an American citizen and has his rights McCain and Graham are wrong.. You can't just strip an American of his rights..

You're wrong again - under the law, we can revoke his citizenship for this.

[lumpster]

They could revoke his citizenship but at the time the crime was committed he was a citizen and has to be placed on trial like one..

[Leroy]

They could revoke his citizenship but at the time the crime was committed he was a citizen and has to be placed on trial like one..

No, he doesn't - they don't have to charge him for 48 hours, they don't have to miranda him, they don't have to do shit except hold him.

[Leroy]

Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?

A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.

Q. Can police question a person without reading them their Miranda rights?

A. Yes. The Miranda warnings must be read only before questioning a person who has been taken into custody.

Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?

A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.

Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?

A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given.

[Leroy]

If you had taken just 2 minutes to search on ARREST WITHOUT MIRANDA would would have know that you were wrong, legally.

[elklindo69]

So conservatives race around blathering about their 2nd amendment rights. And now they want to pick and choose when the constitution should be be applied?

Are we supposed to skip the legal process and public trials? A US citizen taken custody on US soil by local law enforcement should not be granted constitutional rights? Conservatives treat the constitution like toilet paper that they wipe their dirty ass with.

The whole point of having the constitution is to make sure we have a system that operates properly. Because when it properly works, that is when justice has been served.

[Leroy]

So conservatives race around blathering about their 2nd amendment rights. And now they want to pick and choose when the constitution should be be applied?

Are we supposed to skip the legal process and public trials? A US citizen taken custody on US soil by local law enforcement should not be granted constitutional rights? Conservatives treat the constitution like toilet paper that they wipe their dirty ass with.

The whole point of having the constitution is to make sure we have a system that operates properly. Because when it properly works, that is when justice has been served.

And you want to misdirect and blather about something that has been in place for ages - this hasn't changed recently, it's been the rules for a LONG TIME.

How come you haven't protested this before?

[elklindo69]

So conservatives race around blathering about their 2nd amendment rights. And now they want to pick and choose when the constitution should be be applied?

Are we supposed to skip the legal process and public trials? A US citizen taken custody on US soil by local law enforcement should not be granted constitutional rights? Conservatives treat the constitution like toilet paper that they wipe their dirty ass with.

The whole point of having the constitution is to make sure we have a system that operates properly. Because when it properly works, that is when justice has been served.

And you want to misdirect and blather about something that has been in place for ages - this hasn't changed recently, it's been the rules for a LONG TIME.

How come you haven't protested this before?

Since when were people who were arrested by local police on United States soil defined as enemy combatants?

So it's OK for conservatives to claim that it's OK for a person who is arrested on US soil to deprived of their civil rights.

But when it comes to drone strikes of US citizens in foreign jurisdictions, the conservatives start belly aching about the lack of due process.

More conservative hypocrisy in action..............

[Leroy]

Since when were people who were arrested by local police on United States soil defined as enemy combatants?

So it's OK for conservatives to claim that it's OK for a person who is arrested on US soil to deprived of their civil rights.

But when it comes to drone strikes of US citizens in foreign jurisdictions, the conservatives start belly aching about the lack of due process.

More conservative hypocrisy in action..............

When they are part of an International Group that has claimed War against the United States and makes actual Attacks on our soil.

When it comes to drone strikes against TERRORISTS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS (direct or indirect), I support that too.

The Geneva Convention allows low level field officers to declare terrorists as such and execute them without further trial or any "Civil Rights". Terrorists have no civil rights in a war.

[RealJustme]

So conservatives race around blathering about their 2nd amendment rights. And now they want to pick and choose when the constitution should be be applied?

First of all Miranda Rights can be waived if that person may have information that could stop future terrorists attacks. Second show me where in the Constitution it says you have give Miranda Rights.

Most importantly there is no law saying you have to give subjects their Miranda Rights before questioning them about a crime. It's just that if you "don't advise of Miranda Rights", you run the risk that you won't be able to use what they say in a trial against them, it doesn't mean the guy walks, it doesn't mean you can't use what you already have. You guys watch to much television. :lol:

They have tons of evidence against this guy, plus he's already confessed to the bombings, he bragged about it to the guy he hijacked the car from. They don't need a confession from him, they need information so screw the Miranda Rights. Now they need to find out who else is involved and if there are future attacks planned, if they lawyer him up the lawyer will advise him not to say a word, so you don't lawyer him up. So what if it ends up you can't use what he tells you against him, you don't need it, but you can still use it to catch the other guys and stop more attacks.

Carlos

[elklindo69]

This is not about the technicalities of the Miranda warning. Conservatives want to define this guy as an enemy combatant not a criminal defendant

The conservatives came up with the enemy combatant designation. Which violates constitutional rights by detaining people indefinitely without charges, without seeing a judge, and having no right to seek counsel. This un-American and Orewllian as it gets...

[Leroy]

This is not about the technicalities of the Miranda warning. Conservatives want to define this guy as an enemy combatant not a criminal defendant

The conservatives came up with the enemy combatant designation. Which violates constitutional rights by detaining people indefinitely without charges, without seeing a judge, and having no right to seek counsel. This un-American and Orewllian as it gets...

Um, it ain't just "Conservatives", any decent person wants him classified as an "Enemy Combatant" under the current war against Terrorism we're in. He is an admitted Islamic follower, radicalized, and we were warned about him in 2010, but Obama failed to do anything about him.

[RealJustme]

This is not about the technicalities of the Miranda warning.

Yes it is, read the title of the thread.

[lumpster]

His citizenship can't be revoked before his trail.. It can only be revoked upon conviction

[RealJustme]

His citizenship can't be revoked before his trail.. It can only be revoked upon conviction

Why would they need to revoke his citizenship?

[elklindo69]

This is not about the technicalities of the Miranda warning. Conservatives want to define this guy as an enemy combatant not a criminal defendant

The conservatives came up with the enemy combatant designation. Which violates constitutional rights by detaining people indefinitely without charges, without seeing a judge, and having no right to seek counsel. This un-American and Orewllian as it gets...

Um, it ain't just "Conservatives", any decent person wants him classified as an "Enemy Combatant" under the current war against Terrorism we're in. He is an admitted Islamic follower, radicalized, and we were warned about him in 2010, but Obama failed to do anything about him.

Conservatives who are looking to move from irrelevance to the lime light want to classify this individual as an enemy combatant even though there is no evidence to prove it. This individual was not captured on a battlefield nor was an agent of a foreign government or terrorist organization. Therefore he will be prosecuted in a federal court.

The only way that he will get a military tribunal is if there is evidence that he was working for Al Qaeda or Iran. Claims or allegations that he was an islamic agent means nothing...

[lumpster]

His citizenship can't be revoked before his trail.. It can only be revoked upon conviction

Why would they need to revoke his citizenship?

It's the only way they could treat him as an enemy combatant.. He's an American citizen and he must be treated as such.. That means he must have his rights read to him.. This case must go through the normal courts..

[Leroy]

His citizenship can't be revoked before his trail.. It can only be revoked upon conviction

Why would they need to revoke his citizenship?

It's the only way they could treat him as an enemy combatant.. He's an American citizen and he must be treated as such.. That means he must have his rights read to him.. This case must go through the normal courts..

Nope, his citizenship can be revoked by his admission alone, something that is still good (admission) without Miranda.

[elklindo69]

If that's true, then I can go to the local police station and tell them I'm an illegal immigrant from Brazil or something. And get my long awaited vacation to Rio...

:lol:

[brandon]

Lindsay Graham is a moron,

""We plan to invoke the public safety exception to Miranda," a DOJ official told TPM, "in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence."

The public safety exception is often evoked in terrorism cases. It allows law enforcers to question suspects briefly prior to reading Miranda rights, and use the information obtained in this way in a trial.



Maybe he is illiterate? It's not hard to understand.

And cops play games with Miranda warnings all the time. Also with Stop and Frisk (Terry v Ohio) and Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.

It's fuckin' hilarious to watch someone who doesn't understand their basic civil rights and simple laws get all exercised and start shouting about politicians.

Bigger morons.

:lol:

[sillydaddy]

Not reading this guy his rights may set a dangerous precedent. It could put every American citizen at risk.

[RealJustme]

That means he must have his rights read to him

There is no law or requirement that the police must advice anyone of their legal rights to arrest them and take them to jail. You guys watch to much TV.

[lumpster]

That means he must have his rights read to him

There is no law or requirement that the police must advice anyone of their legal rights to arrest them and take them to jail. You guys watch to much TV.

in 1966, the Supreme Court hands down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation.

[Leroy]

That means he must have his rights read to him

There is no law or requirement that the police must advice anyone of their legal rights to arrest them and take them to jail. You guys watch to much TV.

in 1966, the Supreme Court hands down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation.

You really need to look at more current law

[elklindo69]

It's true that police are not required to provide a miranda warning.

But it's a double edged sword that cuts both ways. If that guy is goes and talks and then claims that he had no idea he had the right to remain silent, then the government tricked him into making incriminating statement(s). Which the Miranda warning was supposed to protect. And it will ultimately back fire in the government's face. Because all of the information that they get will not be admissible in court.

[RealJustme]

Because all of the information that they get will not be admissible in court.

Are liberals really that stupid? They have tons of evidence to convict this guy 10 times over. What we need now is is to know who else is involved and what they have planned. So what if they can't use what he says against him? If it allows us to round up more terrorists, take their explosives and stops even one more attack, why not go for it? Why are liberals so dense?

[sillydaddy]

A second year law student could probably get him off with probation! Don't have vid of him planting the bomb and running from an explosion is not a crime. Only living witness saw his brother plant a bomb. Cops saw brother throw bomb at them. Kid could blame cop's death the dead brother. Dead brother is the only confirmed terrorist. No bombs found on the kid. The Govt better have all it's ducks in a row to convict this guy .

[RealJustme]

The Government has the best confession they could ever get. They bragged of the bombing to the guy they were holding a gun to his head as they stole his SUV...let him argue the confession was made to the victim under duress or through trickery. :lol: