Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ha admitted to masterminding 911, it was an act of war, so he gave up any rights he may have been awarded in a court of law. When the Seals found him, he chose to raise his AK and aim it at the Seal, he signed his death warrant at that point. Had he surrendered, I am sure he would have been given his rights, in Arabic to boot!
Lots of people admit and take credit for things they didnt do, and there are various Seals who said he not only didnt raise his AK, but there wasnt a weapon found anywhere close to him.
Ha admitted to masterminding 911, it was an act of war, so he gave up any rights he may have been awarded in a court of law. When the Seals found him, he chose to raise his AK and aim it at the Seal, he signed his death warrant at that point. Had he surrendered, I am sure he would have been given his rights, in Arabic to boot!
Really..an "act of war" declared on the US by a single person ?
No, an act of terrorism, not an act of war.
The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.
It is a "public safety exception" which also allows the government to question a suspect and the use the statements in court. Sounds like the epitome of unconstitutional to me.
The "public safety" exception applies to such questions as "are there any other bombs; where are they?" or in other sorts of cases "Where are the hostages? Where is the person you kidnapped?" -- that is, things which present a present danger to the public. Unless they have reason to suspect he's planted other bombs elsewhere, it's completely inapplicable and they're just trying to rip up more of the constitution; otherwise, why would they make this big announcement that they're doing it?
Of course if he doesn't answer or the government doesn't attempt to use his answers in court, the question of the necessity of Miranda in this case will never be examined by the courts. And the government will have gotten away with it.
And all of you who supported such things as locking down an entire metro area will eat it up.
The "public safety" exception applies to such questions as "are there any other bombs; where are they?" or in other sorts of cases "Where are the hostages? Where is the person you kidnapped?" -- that is, things which present a present danger to the public. Unless they have reason to suspect he's planted other bombs elsewhere, it's completely inapplicable and they're just trying to rip up more of the constitution; otherwise, why would they make this big announcement that they're doing it?
Of course if he doesn't answer or the government doesn't attempt to use his answers in court, the question of the necessity of Miranda in this case will never be examined by the courts. And the government will have gotten away with it.
And all of you who supported such things as locking down an entire metro area will eat it up.
He's going to be mirandized and tried in civilian court, since he is a citizen.
And yes, for a while, they were very concerned that there were bombs elsewhere, as well as accomplices.
It's confusing. The Supreme court is also looking at the idea that a person prior to formal arrest who is not co-operative with police through silence...may incriminate them selves through that silence which may be an implication of guilt...so you can't win. It looks as if government makes up the laws as they go along to suit their own agenda. In this case once the suspect recovers (if he does) , he will be questioned - the guy is a 19 year old...I am sure he will talk openly. So this issue talked about here is really just theoretical. It is interesting from a legal point of view though.
The "public safety" exception applies to such questions as "are there any other bombs; where are they?" or in other sorts of cases "Where are the hostages? Where is the person you kidnapped?" -- that is, things which present a present danger to the public. Unless they have reason to suspect he's planted other bombs elsewhere, it's completely inapplicable and they're just trying to rip up more of the constitution; otherwise, why would they make this big announcement that they're doing it?
Of course if he doesn't answer or the government doesn't attempt to use his answers in court, the question of the necessity of Miranda in this case will never be examined by the courts. And the government will have gotten away with it.
And all of you who supported such things as locking down an entire metro area will eat it up.
There is nothing to "get away with".
Hell, the name of the warning is actually named after the man who had his admissions thrown out because he wasnt mirandized.
So questioning him, and not using his answers in court, is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.
Example: Police officer asks a bank robber if he robbed the bank, the bank robber responds with yes. Provided his "yes" doesnt come into the court, and they use photos, finger prints, the fact that he was driving a getaway car, with the truck full of cash, is enough to convict him, then him not being mirandized doesnt matter.
I gave you FOUR Supreme Court rulings on the matter..
'
I stand corrected. After custody, miranda warning is to be given before questioning; and interrogation testimony given by the suspect prior is not admissible in court.
If he is a citizen he has the full rights of a citizen. You can't take a citizens rights away because you do not like them. How can this be any different than the Aurora Colorado shootings? Any act that results in fear - apprehension or terror - are all terrorist acts. A common mugging where a punk threatens to beat and old lady unless she hands over her money is a terrorist act. Soon as they toss the word TERRORIST into the air...all of a sudden all laws - all rights vanish?
As I am typing I just heard a Boston cop say..."we are happy to have closure and JUSTICE" - what the hell is that about? - a court of law doles out justice - a proper trial.
It just goes to show you that some cops seem to think that they are the law and they dispense justice...No- if rule of law is to prevail - due process must take place.
Frankly, I'd give the police involved a break at this point in time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
