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.
That only works if his confession is used as evidence against him in court. If the confession is never used, then all the other evidence can be lawfully excluded as evidence against him.
Thats so totally false I dont even know where to begin..
That only works if his confession is used as evidence against him in court. If the confession is never used, then all the other evidence can be lawfully excluded as evidence against him.
That is 100% wrong. Educate yourself. You keep repeating false information.
The ONLY thing that can be excluded when a suspect is not Mirandized is his TESTIMONY. If evidence is obtained PRIOR to questioning him it absolutely CANNOT be excluded based on anything he says.
They do, however, exert force on the U.S. Justice Department.
Apparently, such force is easily repelled by U.S. rules of evidence.
US rules of evidence once again, does not apply to international courts, even if the US Justice Department shows up to fight a case. International rules would apply.
Anyone find it funny that the very same people who are excusing the bomber of not getting his miranda warnings due to things like the patriot act, etc, are the very ones who demanding those in Guantano Bay be read their rights?
Anyone find it funny that the very same people who are excusing the bomber of not getting his miranda warnings due to things like the patriot act, etc, are the very ones who demanding those in Guantano Bay be read their rights?
Hypocrites....
I'm pretty far left, and the issue I took with Guantanamo had nothing to do with Miranda rights.
That is 100% wrong. Educate yourself. You keep repeating false information.
The ONLY thing that can be excluded when a suspect is not Mirandized is his TESTIMONY. If evidence is obtained PRIOR to questioning him it absolutely CANNOT be excluded based on anything he says.
It was done!
Every participant in the Iraqi murder cases confessed to every detail.
They knowingly confessed to their crimes knowing on military advice that what they did was a crime.
This was done with the video evidence of their crime, concealed from the prosecutors.
This is why they were never prosecuted - By anyone!
The military never dreamed that the video would be released to the public.
That Bradley Manning guy caused an "embarrassment".
He is an American citizen....his rights certainly matter.
Under the Patriot Act they don't exist.... That is the problem with this and many other items used to chip away our rights.
If you do a little searching you can find several instances that Americans were whisked away without due process, no attorneys and no contact with anyone.
It really is a bad thing.
You can think his rights matter but that, in fact does nothing to reinstate them. He has no rights. Not unlike any other American that gets identified as a terrorist (even if not true)
I stopped here because you just contradicted yourself..
So let me see if I get this straight, its not about if they can use the information obtain, its about if they can force people to provide information that they can use.
I'm not contradicting myself at all, and yes, that's correct. Authorities cannot compel a person to answer questions. That's the protection stipulated in the 5th Amendment. The SCOTUS decided that in order to prevent authorities from violating those rights (which could take many forms, from simple deception, to coercion, to "strenuous persuasion")... i.e. the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney during questioning ... they must inform the person of those rights BEFORE SUCH QUESTIONING OCCURS. If they engage in questioning a suspect without issuing the warning, THAT IS THE VIOLATION, whether they ever intend to use the information or not in a subsequent prosecution is secondary to that. The penalty for that violation of rights is that any information obtained is deemed illegally obtained, and therefore not admissible in court. But, whether or not any attempt is made, or any intension is there to use such illegally obtained information in a prosecution is immaterial to the violation of the required miranda warning.
The reason for this may be beyond your capacity to understand, but I'll try to make it as simple as I can For example ... authorities can only detain a person for a proscribed period of time without reasonable suspicion, and sufficient evidence to charge you with a crime. And they may have no such evidence at all to support charging you or reasonable suspicion in order to continue holding you beyond that allowable time frame, unless you provide it during an interrogation. They could violate your rights by not informing you of them, in order to attain enough evidence to hold you in confinement, long before any visit to court. This is why the miranda warning is not just intended to make evidence admissible in court, as you continue to insist. You are WRONG in such a view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
One could argue you are wrong again, but what the hell does that have to do with the topic? (especially considering the laws says you can be detained for 48 hours, and not charged with a dam thing).
The answer is above, if you can escape your tunnel vision long enough to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Not everyone arrested is read their miranda warnings..
They fn do not. The court case you listed actually says you are wrong..
They didnt provide a miranda warning, the Supreme Court said THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, could not be used, the man was retried, and re-convicted.
HE was NOT read his miranda warnings..
No, it does not. The Chief Justice Earl Warren said in the court's decision:
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him
So, you are wrong, not according to me, but according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruling on the Miranda case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So if I'm correct, why the hell are you telling me I'm wrong?
Because you are wrong, and I just provided indisputable proof in the form of the words of the SCOTUS which state EXACTLY what I said .... Miranda MUST BE ISSUED PRIOR TO INTERROGATION.
You are "technically correct, only in that the government often does what it is not legally allowed to do, and is rarely subject to any consequences for doing so. I was once arrested as a teenager with another fellow. We happened to be in the company of someone with some pot. Neither of us had any pot ... we had not smoked any pot ... and we didn't even know that the other guy had pot. Yet, because we were in his car, they arrested all of us. As we were sitting in the jail cell, my pot-less friend kept repeating, "they can't do this" ... over and over again. Finally, I told him to shut his face up, because those bars we're looking right at suggested otherwise. So, he was technically correct, but very wrong ... they most certainly could, and absolutely did do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
No its not.. Often times you question someone you arrested to obtain information to arrest and convict OTHER people. For example, who helped you rob the bank?
That's a ridiculous thing to say. So, let's see if I get you straight ... they catch one bank robber, and purposely not issue him his miranda warning so that they can get him to reveal his accomplices, but they don't intend on prosecuting him? How about a more rational analogy ... they question him illegally, in order to identify the accomplice, then they can have each one testify against the other, and give neither the required warning?
This is what your expert knowledge of the law tells you?
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.
For example ... authorities can only detain a person for a proscribed period of time without reasonable suspicion, and sufficient evidence to charge you with a crime. And they may have no such evidence at all to support charging you or reasonable suspicion in order to continue holding you beyond that allowable time frame, unless you provide it during an interrogation. They could violate your rights by not informing you of them, in order to attain enough evidence to hold you in confinement, long before any visit to court. This is why the miranda warning is not just intended to make evidence admissible in court, as you continue to insist. You are WRONG in such a view. 
