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.
One must wonder if Obama wished they had found him in another country so they could go in and execute him, and then throw him overboard in the ocean.
And I wonder how many people here who celebrated the execution of Bin Laden as an Obama success story, are now calling for this bomber to be mirandized. Remember, Bin Laden was never found guilty of anything, in the court of law, so this would make them hypocrites.
Who wants this administrations DOJ determining those things?
It's pretty obvious that even after his capture, there was a danger to public safety, considering they were planting and using explosives. This is not exactly a grey area.
Do you personally think there was no danger at all to public safety after his capture?
We've read that Johar Tsarnaev is not to be "Mirandized", which I take to mean not informed of his constitutional rights. But do those rights not still exist, even if one is not informed of them? Naturally, I understand that someone ignorant of their rights may fail to use them. But one's civil rights are not created by the act of informing the person they exist - they exist regardless, correct?
We've read that Johar Tsarnaev is not to be "Mirandized", which I take to mean not informed of his constitutional rights. But do those rights not still exist, even if one is not informed of them? Naturally, I understand that someone ignorant of their rights may fail to use them. But one's civil rights are not created by the act of informing the person they exist - they exist regardless, correct?
Yes. He can say "I'm not talking without a lawyer".
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.
LE has a reason to suspect he planted other bombs elsewhere since they found 7 IEDs during the lockdown. LE doesn't know if there are more out there, so there is the possibility of "a present danger to the public". The public safety exception would be applicable in this case.
You don't have to be mirandized to have those rights.
this seems to be a grey area created by the patriot act. interrogation by a federal official for 48 hours then the person in custody must then be mirandized.
This 48 hours is the grey area. Can they infact interrogate him and not provide him a lawyer if he requests one? do they...or are they able to contitue the interroagtion? what is the purpose of not informing him of his 5th amendment rights?
this maybe case law to challenge that provision in the patriot act.
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.
