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.
The real reason you're supporting this terrorist is simply to slag on the president. We all know it, so you might as well come clean.
How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?
I'm concerned about the continuous assault on the constitution, and our laws.
I've actually turned cold on Rubio, McCain (years ago), and all other republicans who support immigration bills, which will be amnesty.
Our sovereign laws are being broken by hundreds of illegals crossing the border, others illegally overstaying the term of their visa's, and other illegals on a daily basis.
I am probably the most intellectually honest person on this forum.
Talk to me when you lefties start calling it an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT problem instead of bashing American citizens who they claim are "against immigration".
Allegedly!!! Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, correct?
It's nice that you believe he should have the same rights as you, but the truth is he won't be given that opportunity, and you don't have as many rights as you think you do. It all depends on what they can get away with.
He is an innocent kid to me.
I'd be more inclined to agree with you if his actions hadn't been caught ON VIDEO. There is not really any question (other than from tin foil hat types) that this person planted the bomb that killed and maimed, among many other people, an 8 year old child.
Of course, it's a legal nicety that we're technically "innocent till proven guilty." That doesn't mean that a murderer who killed someone is ACTUALLY innocent - just "legally" innocent.
This is why I have adamantly stated that this young man (he is not a kid - he is a grown man and a legal adult) should be tried as any other citizen of the US.
He IS an American citizen and has the same rights as ALL American citizens.
If he were NOT a citizen, I couldn't care less what they do with him.
The constitution giveth and the constitution taketh away.
The Miranda warning is not in the Constitution. It is a modern creation. Further, there is a specific provision that the Miranda warning need not be administered if the detainee in question poses a continued risk to the public. Clearly, the bomber would fall into this category.
What I am getting here is that the authorities already had/have another evidence to convict this person of terrorist crimes prior to his capture and interrogation. His interrogation now without Miranda I agree violates Miranda vs Arizona and can be inadmissable in court. However if the authorities are questioning him to ascertain whether there are any more bombs floating around, terrorists planning more bombings, things that could further injure/kill people then this seems common sensed. They could exclude this much from his trial and probably still sufficiently convict him or have him plea bargain. If it is going to a military tribunal, then that is another story entirely.
His interrogation now without Miranda I agree violates Miranda vs Arizona and can be inadmissable in court.
It is always best to use words like, could, might, maybe, or perhaps, rather than making affirmative statements unless you have know that they have questioned him, know what the questions were, are, or will be, or even who is going to do the question; and that you have a firm and absolute understanding of both Federal and state rules of evidence, the "national security exception," and or Court precedent so that you might avoid appearing like a total dork at some future date.
I might add that if the Executive branch of the government chooses to, misapply any of those exceptions, Court precedents, or otherwise overstep its authority, or violate the rights of this defendant that it is a far cry from trying to argue that The Government has "stomped on the Constitution" because their is another branch, as right wing as it has become of late, has been remarkably balanced in ensuring the rights of the accused (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008),) and insuring the Judiciary's role as the third party of our governmental triumvirate.
But I will say this, I hope the Administration and the Justice Department in particular bends over backwards in protecting Mr. Tasraev's constitutional rights so that he can be tried, and if found guilty punished to full extent of the law be it by the state of Massachusetts or the federal government.
Since it takes all of a minute to read someone their miranda rights before an interrogation, I don't see why the feds would even consider this, unless they're attempting to set a precedent for denying people their rights in the future.
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.
