Tom Ridge: Terror suspect doesn't deserve 'full range' of rights (borders, revolution)
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.
Not being a US citizen, how is this cockroach protected by the constitution?
You think there's wiggle room in the words "No person"? If you're under US jurisdiction, you're entitled to constitutional protection. Do you know of a civilized nation that does otherwise?
Yeah...I wouldn't be too worried about the individuals involved with the evidence right in front of your face, but you may have an issue with the rest of the investigation if there are others involved (having what he says leading you to probable cause for warrants, etc.). It's a can of worms that doesn't necessarily have to be opened (IMO). "Think about how many "what ifs", "maybes", "is it going to's" and "couldn't its" we could come up right here. This would be f-ing months to years in court unnecessarily in my opinion. Maybe the administation is into keeping lawyers in work to help stimulate the economy, because this is going to keep a lot in work for a long time.
Actually you can use anything he says against others. He's only protected against incriminating himself.
You think there's wiggle room in the words "No person"? If you're under US jurisdiction, you're entitled to constitutional protection. Do you know of a civilized nation that does otherwise?
That's not necessarily true. If he's not formally admitted to the country, like an illegal alien arriving at an airport who is detained prior to entry, I don't believe he has to be afforded the same rights. However, once his passport's stamped, he's entitled. I don't think though he could be prosecuted here unless he is admitted so it's a two edged sword. He probably could have been sent straight to Gitmo or to a black site in some other country where we could have allowed another country to work him over. Could have been a problem though getting a conviction later if he survived.
That's not necessarily true. If he's not formally admitted to the country, like an illegal alien arriving at an airport who is detained prior to entry, I don't believe he has to be afforded the same rights.
However, once his passport's stamped, he's entitled. I don't think though he could be prosecuted here unless he is admitted so it's a two edged sword.
I think you're wrong. Illegal immigrants are brought up on charges in US courts all the time, papers or no papers. That doesn't mean they're formally admitted to the US, quite the contrary. Territorial jurisdiction is the primary mechanism - the country in which the crime is committed has jurisdiction.
This shouldn't be confused with immigration cases, which are civil, not criminal, and so come with much-reduced rights for those arrested on immigration violation suspicion.
Quote:
He probably could have been sent straight to Gitmo or to a black site in some other country where we could have allowed another country to work him over.
He could have been turned away at the border and sent to his home country of Nigeria.
(That's how they finessed the Maher Arar case. Technically, Maher Arar had both Canadian and Syrian citizenship, so he was "extradited" to Syria who obligingly tortured a confession of training in Afghanistan out of him. Great result, except he'd never been there. Which goes to show why torture is so freakin' stupid. But I digress.)
Actually you can use anything he says against others. He's only protected against incriminating himself.
First of all, since you do have investigative experience, you KNOW for a fact that EVERYTHING (especially in a high-profile case) will be argued to the nth degree. It will unecessarily (IMO) be a gaggle wrapped around a clusted surrounded by a seven layer dip of b.s. You're right in a sense, but there will be a lot of chicken-egg arguments in these situations (may or may not matter but they will be argued). You also know that the law isn't an exact science. You can't just plug and play. Additionally, it depends what kind of court we have. The exclusionary rule was argued "relatively" extensively in 09. Guess what...5-4 (the usual ). A proposal (not enacted) has also recently been brought up regarding this very scenario. It's something like if the third party is the target of the investigation when the primary was illegally dealt with (don't recall to what extent/level) the third party can invoke the exclusionary rule. In the context of what you are talking about (won't effect things regarding others so...so what?), this would directly apply. I'll try to find a link if you care, but it's already been talked about as a "reform". It has and will continue to be argued to death. All this is not necessary IMO. There needs to be a "when dealing with identifiable terrorist" scenario...especially non-citizen identifiable terrorists.
"I take a look at this individual who has been charged criminally, does that mean he gets his Miranda warnings? The only information we get is if he volunteers it?" Ridge said. "He's not a citizen of this country. He's a terrorist, and I don't think he deserves the full range of protections of our criminal justice system embodied in the Constitution of the United States."
We should lower our bar to that of the terrorists we are fighting.
You think there's wiggle room in the words "No person"? If you're under US jurisdiction, you're entitled to constitutional protection. Do you know of a civilized nation that does otherwise?
First of all, since you do have investigative experience, you KNOW for a fact that EVERYTHING (especially in a high-profile case) will be argued to the nth degree. It will unecessarily (IMO) be a gaggle wrapped around a clusted surrounded by a seven layer dip of b.s. You're right in a sense, but there will be a lot of chicken-egg arguments in these situations (may or may not matter but they will be argued). You also know that the law isn't an exact science. You can't just plug and play. Additionally, it depends what kind of court we have. The exclusionary rule was argued "relatively" extensively in 09. Guess what...5-4 (the usual ). A proposal (not enacted) has also recently been brought up regarding this very scenario. It's something like if the third party is the target of the investigation when the primary was illegally dealt with (don't recall to what extent/level) the third party can invoke the exclusionary rule. In the context of what you are talking about (won't effect things regarding others so...so what?), this would directly apply. I'll try to find a link if you care, but it's already been talked about as a "reform". It has and will continue to be argued to death. All this is not necessary IMO. There needs to be a "when dealing with identifiable terrorist" scenario...especially non-citizen identifiable terrorists.
Dang...that was a rambling paragraph.
I think you have a much more nuanced and thoughtful view of this than Tom Ridge. I doubt he's given it as much thought as most of the folks here. His statement seems more like sound byte pol speak than lawyerly consideration.
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.
). A proposal (not enacted) has also recently been brought up regarding this very scenario. It's something like if the third party is the target of the investigation when the primary was illegally dealt with (don't recall to what extent/level) the third party can invoke the exclusionary rule. In the context of what you are talking about (won't effect things regarding others so...so what?), this would directly apply. I'll try to find a link if you care, but it's already been talked about as a "reform". It has and will continue to be argued to death. All this is not necessary IMO. There needs to be a "when dealing with identifiable terrorist" scenario...especially non-citizen identifiable terrorists. 
.
