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.
"In a news conference at the Justice Department, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said Shahzad was initially interrogated by the FBI under the "public safety exception to the Miranda rule" and provided "valuable" intelligence and evidence. Pistole said Shahzad was later Mirandized and "continued to cooperate and provide valuable information.""
I dont know if he was or wasnt, but I'm really confused over what the whole issue is to begin with. Liberals keep wanting to talk about how he needs mirandized which is NOT what the law says..
If he is questioned, without being mirandized, no law is broken. Not mirandizing him simply limits the ability of the information obtained to be used against him in the court of law.
The FBI agent read Lindh his rights because he said he was an American citizen, and that fact required the agent to read him his rights as he was in clear violation of the Treason Act and would at the minimum be charged with that. But the article is also clear...at any point the Gov't wants to question you they must read you your rights, or those they are providing you with however limited they may be.
Lindh, was read his rights because of the intention to try him in a U.S. Court, period. It is rather funny, and to say nothing about being disingenuous, that the then Bush Justice Department advised the FBI that if there was any consideration to try Saddam Hussein in a U.S. Court that he would have to be read his Miranda rights. Alternately, even though former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was captured as a prisoner of war, he was read his Miranda rights for the very reason that he was to be tried in a U.S. Court for violation of criminal statutes (that was Reagan you may recall).
I dont know if he was or wasnt, but I'm really confused over what the whole issue is to begin with. Liberals keep wanting to talk about how he needs mirandized which is NOT what the law says..
As for what the law says, I will defer to those who specialize in such things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If he is questioned, without being mirandized, no law is broken. Not mirandizing him simply limits the ability of the information obtained to be used against him in the court of law.
I don't believe that anyone said that a law was broken. People are questioned by authorities all the time without being Mirandized. However, in the cases where those people are ultimately (going to be) prosecuted, I would imagine that they are all then Mirandized prior to charges being filed.
In any event, from what I've read about this particular case, it has not been 'liberals' who raised the issue. Not sure why it is such a 'hot button' issue with the GOP, particularly given the constitutional issues and all, but, there it is.
I guess I don't understand why anyone would willingly and knowingly limit the amount of information that could be used in court, or advocate for such, but, that's just me.
One will find protection from self incrimination, but miranda rights do not exist anywhere in the Constitution..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
Do you want to TRY the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nope.. Not there!!
But I repeat myself, do you want to TRY the 4th Amendment?
Some people make the claim that anybody detained by our government on charges has the right to Miranda. If that were the case, then wouldn't all POWs enjoy that right when detained by agents of the government... like our military?
Why is our military not trained on Miranda rights, since they should be giving them to every POW detained?
As such he is entitled to all rights due to any of us, guaranteed by the Constitution of these United States of America.
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.
