Suspect Was Not Read Miranda Rights

[ModernGunner]

Good. He's a terrorist.

 

[Smokepole]

Nope. "It's for the children" is not a legitimate argument. There are legitimate exceptions to the 4th amendment warrant requirement. See the word "unreasonable" in the amendment itself. There is a reason that the word "unreasonable" is in the 4th amendment. The founding fathers were brilliant men, and I believe that they understood that the governing of a society is not a zero sum game.

I agree that the Founders were brilliant men, faaaar beyond what we have in government today. But I tend to not put anything past those running things today to be able to make almost anything SEEM reasonable. With the help of a bunch of sycophantic lawyers and so-called journalists. Because "it's for the children". The all encompassing mantra of today's American tyrant enablers.

 

[Smokepole]

So, you were so interested in this issue that you didn't bother even reading the case that was cited. Why do so many here consider ignorance a virtue? Courts decide, just like ALL OTHER Miranda and evidence issues, at a suppression hearing. Everybody is on their high horses thumping their chests, acting like they're reenacting Brave heart. Miranda is an ADVISEMENT requirement, not a substantive right. The little bastard hasn't been denied any rights. Stop acting like a summary execution by drawing and quartering was held.

No, I know that in most cases it is in a court hearing, but you seem to ignore thing like FISA - yes a court hearing is held, AFTER THE FACT, - and the agencies are rarely if ever punished other than a slap on the wrist. There are other laws and statutes that enable the Feds to do things outside of the Constitutional protections, Patriot Act and others that I don't recall off the top of my head. Not that the current administration is the only one that has enacted some of this stuff. They all have some culpability over the last 50 years.

 

[rambone]

He will be prosecuted criminally. There's no rational doubt about that.

Actually there is rational doubt. This is the same government that passed the NDAA law a year and a half ago. A U.S. Senator is encouraging the president to use it.

And I think that we all agree that non-citizens are not necessarily entitled to the rights that citizens are.

I don't agree. The Bill of Rights is not supposed to be viewed as a benefits package available to certain people. It is a cage designed for the Federal Government. Either the government stays in the cage or it doesn't.

 

[Expat]

As I understand it, declaring him an enemy combatant does not mean he won't be tried in a civilian criminal court. It will give the government extra time to try to gather intelligence that will be useful for the larger purpose of combatting terrorism.

 

[roisigns]

I believe he is a U.S. citizen.

 

[Marine1]

Should have shot him dead and not woried about his rights the people in Boston had the right to run down the street and he didn't care about there rights so screw his rights.

 

[Expat]

I believe he is a U.S. citizen.

You can be a citizen and an enemy combatant.

 

[jbombelli]

Should have shot him dead and not woried about his rights the people in Boston had the right to run down the street and he didn't care about there rights so screw his rights.

That's not how our country works. The accused has rights here. That is one of the cornerstones of our entire nation and system of justice.

You can be a citizen and an enemy combatant.

Maybe so, if you're wearing the uniform of a foreign army and you're captured on the battlefield.



Believe me ... I'm all for hanging this guy and making a spectacle of it. But I want to do it right. I want him to be afforded all the rights he is due as a citizen of this country. I want him to have a lawyer. I want him to have his lawyer present during questioning. I want him to receive a fair trial. From what I've seen and heard, the evidence and case against him should be pretty solid on a whole laundry list of charges, so he'll most likely be convicted and sentenced to death.

What I DON'T want to see is the President of the United States, by stroke of a pen, sending a citizen of this country away to be held indefinitely without charge, without representation, without habeus corpus. THAT is NOT what this country is about.



If there's one thing we should take from all this, it's this: this case demonstrates why it should be a lot harder to become a citizen of this country. The proper solution is to make it harder to become a citizen, not make it easier to toss the rights of citizenship aside when they're inconvenient to our goals.

 

[hornadylnl]

That's not how our country works. The accused has rights here. That is one of the cornerstones of our entire nation and system of justice.



Maybe so, if you're wearing the uniform of a foreign army and you're captured on the battlefield.



Believe me ... I'm all for hanging this guy and making a spectacle of it. But I want to do it right. I want him to be afforded all the rights he is due as a citizen of this country. I want him to have a lawyer. I want him to have his lawyer present during questioning. I want him to receive a fair trial. From what I've seen and heard, the evidence and case against him should be pretty solid on a whole laundry list of charges, so he'll most likely be convicted and sentenced to death.

What I DON'T want to see is the President of the United States, by stroke of a pen, sending a citizen of this country away to be held indefinitely without charge, without representation, without habeus corpus. THAT is NOT what this country is about.



If there's one thing we should take from all this, it's this: this case demonstrates why it should be a lot harder to become a citizen of this country. The proper solution is to make it harder to become a citizen, not make it easier to toss the rights of citizenship aside when they're inconvenient to our goals.

But these things will only happen to the bad guys. Who cares if the rules are bent just a little.....


If only the entire DOJ and LE were made up of Leroy Jethro Gibbs', I'd trust them to bend the rules to get the bad guy.

 

[CarmelHP]

No, I know that in most cases it is in a court hearing, but you seem to ignore thing like FISA - yes a court hearing is held, AFTER THE FACT, - and the agencies are rarely if ever punished other than a slap on the wrist. There are other laws and statutes that enable the Feds to do things outside of the Constitutional protections, Patriot Act and others that I don't recall off the top of my head. Not that the current administration is the only one that has enacted some of this stuff. They all have some culpability over the last 50 years.

Miranda and suppression hearings have to with admissibility of evidence, so yes, a court decides what it will admit at trial. It ALWAYS is after the fact, it has to be. If the Feds overstep then it affects what evidence they can use. I didn't think this was so impossible to understand.

 

[Expat]

Maybe so, if you're wearing the uniform of a foreign army and you're captured on the battlefield.

Here is the definition that a Federal Court assigned to the term...

“ ‘Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces.”
US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon

 

[actaeon277]

Should have shot him dead and not woried about his rights the people in Boston had the right to run down the street and he didn't care about there rights so screw his rights.

It's not about "his" rights. It's about "our" rights. If they can do that to someone else, then they can do that to you.
A violation of someone else's rights is a violation of your rights.

And I'm glad they didn't have to kill him.
What if he's been to meetings with 20 other guys planning to do the same thing? A little questioning would be nice, don't you think?

 

[jbombelli]

Here is the definition that a Federal Court assigned to the term...

“ ‘Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces.”
US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon

First, according to that definition, someone in a uniform fighting for another country and killing American soldiers is not an "enemy combatant." There's a big flaw right there. It doesn't even differentiate between "lawful enemy combatants" and "unlawful enemy combatants."

Second, I haven't seen anything that says this guy is a confirmed Al Qaeda member or confirmed part of the Taliban. Or even that he directly supported "hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces."

Just being a Muslim and setting a bomb (i.e. the "belligerent act") doesn't quite meet all of the elements of the definition.


This is a very, very slippery slope we should not be going down. NO American Citizen should ever have his rights stripped away for any reason based on the decision of the President or some shadowy government agency with no judicial oversight. Period. I'm really shocked and saddened that so many people think this is okay.

 

[Expat]

First, according to that definition, someone in a uniform fighting for another country and killing American soldiers is not an "enemy combatant." There's a big flaw right there. It doesn't even differentiate between "lawful enemy combatants" and "unlawful enemy combatants."

Second, I haven't seen anything that says this guy is a confirmed Al Qaeda member or confirmed part of the Taliban. Or even that he directly supported "hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces."

Just being a Muslim and setting a bomb (i.e. the "belligerent act") doesn't quite meet all of the elements of the definition.


This is a very, very slippery slope we should not be going down. NO American Citizen should ever have his rights stripped away for any reason based on the decision of the President or some shadowy government agency with no judicial oversight. Period. I'm really shocked and saddened that so many people think this is okay.

The case involved was unlawful enemy combatants. The judge wasn't happy that we had a law with no definition of the main word/phrase. The Obama administration had said they would no longer use "enemy combatant" and only use "unlawful combatant". Of course they don't even like to use the T word.

I think the bigger question in my mind, is why the younger brother was given citizenship to begin with. His brother was reported to be a radical. He had just gotten back from 6 months of travel in radical areas. His parents believed 9/11 was done by the US and the Jews as an attack on Islam. The brothers were apparently fans of a radical jihadi sheik.
I would think there would be some sort of a hold on giving a guy with that baggage citizenship. And if he wasn't on our radar, then Janet Napolitan should resign.

 

[jbombelli]

The case involved was unlawful enemy combatants. The judge wasn't happy that we had a law with no definition of the main word/phrase. The Obama administration had said they would no longer use "enemy combatant" and only use "unlawful combatant". Of course they don't even like to use the T word.

I think the bigger question in my mind, is why the younger brother was given citizenship to begin with. His brother was reported to be a radical. He had just gotten back from 6 months of travel in radical areas. His parents believed 9/11 was done by the US and the Jews as an attack on Islam. The brothers were apparently fans of a radical jihadi sheik.
I would think there would be some sort of a hold on giving a guy with that baggage citizenship. And if he wasn't on our radar, then Janet Napolitan should resign.

As I said...

"If there's one thing we should take from all this, it's this: this case demonstrates why it should be a lot harder to become a citizen of this country. The proper solution is to make it harder to become a citizen, not make it easier to toss the rights of citizenship aside when they're inconvenient to our goals."

 

[CarmelHP]

What rights were violated? Who classified him an enemy combatant other than INGO theorists. What a tempest in a teapot. What does it have to do with Miranda?

 

[actaeon277]

What rights were violated? Who classified him an enemy combatant other than INGO theorists. What a tempest in a teapot. What does it have to do with Miranda?

It was in the news.
If he wasn't read Miranda, then his case takes a hit in civilian courts.
If we require Miranda, but make an exception when they deem necessary, what stops them from "determining" it is necessary more?

 

[Mark 1911]

According the narcissistic self-appointed king of the United States of America, everyone who posted in this thread, regardless of viewpoint, is a terrorist. Therefore, by virtue of our INGO affiliation, not to mention our NRA memberships, we are "willful liars" and a threat to the common good who should be ashamed of ourselves for daring to disagree with some corrupt socialist politician from Chicago, and for daring to intimidate our senators, which by the way makes all of us mentally unstable. Our front doors are next on the list. After all, if it works in Boston, it can work anywhere.

 

[Black Cloud]

What rights were violated? ...

Perhaps these Rights were violated...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8