Boston Marathon Terrorists Engaged.

[phrogdriver]

If a homeowner voluntarily allows the police to search, it's not a violation of his rights. Agreed on that.

The point is that the Miranda exceptions are being too loosely applied, where it is supposed to be a narrow exception. The idea is to enable actions against imminent threats, not to conduct fishing expeditions when no legitimate threat exists any longer.

The "War on Terror" has claimed at least half of the bill of rights, plus other long-standing legal traditions, such as the right for habeus corpus.

Off the top of my head...

1st Amendment. Misuse of secrecy laws and intimidation of publications not to protect means and methods, but the actual conduct of affairs in government. We don't even know what we don't know as far as what the government is doing in our name.

4th. Unreasonable search and seizure. Warrantless wiretaps. Surveillance of Americans' emails. Legalization of "black bag jobs" (secret search warrants--i.e. break-ins) with a rubber stamp of judicial approval.

5th. Denial of counsel. Torture to obtain confessions. Don't say it's not torture--when our enemies have used those techniques against us, that's what we called it.

6th. I don't think indefinite detention is a speedy trial. Denial of counsel again. Not allowing defendants, when they do have trials, to confront accusers or see the evidence against them.

8th. Cruel and unusual punishment. Yeah, the torture thing again.

An overreaction following 9/11 was understandable. However, we've had over 10 years to fine tune these laws, yet the government has not given up any of the powers it was given following 9/11.

If we keep eroding our rights, what makes America a place worth defending?

 

[Spekkio]

When a half dozen police dressed in riot gear (albeit often poorly fitted and incorrectly assembled in this case) and "ask" to search your house for a terrorist you don't really have a choice. If you say no they will have probable cause that you are either under durress or are harboring a terrorist and come in anyway.

Point is, I don't think that essentially declaring martial law and parading around out-of-shape police dressed in riot gear is the appropriate response to every knucklehead that uses homemade explosives to murder people. What makes this act so much more exceptional than serial killers like the DC sniper or the Son of Sam? The fact that his weapon of choice was explosives vice a firearm? We didn't take nearly as draconian measures to catch them and they both killed more people.

 

[HokiePilot]

Miranda only applies if you want to use the statements from the interrogation later in criminal court against the suspect. If the police believe they already have enough evidence to convict him, there is no reason to mirandize him.

 

[OscarMyers]

I'm curious as to what warranted this response from the LEO's.

 

[gotta_fly]

If you say no they will have probable cause that you are either under durress or are harboring a terrorist and come in anyway.

Did this actually happen, was it a stated policy, or are you just making wild assumptions to prove your point?


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[wink]

Miranda only applies if you want to use the statements from the interrogation later in criminal court against the suspect. If the police believe they already have enough evidence to convict him, there is no reason to mirandize him.

Booya!

 

[phrogdriver]

True enough, nevertheless, we still see our "leaders" in Congress talking about silliness like declaring him a enemy combatant.

 

[wink]

True enough, nevertheless, we still see our "leaders" in Congress talking about silliness like declaring him a enemy combatant.

Have to admit, in this particular case, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. But for the sake of clarification and furtherance of respectful and enlightening debate, what would it take for you to declare him an enemy combatant? A state actor, uniform, capture on a traditional battle field, threat to US and allied troops? Just wondering, because it is clearly debatable. The problem is the opinions run the entire spectrum, and some of them are unworkable, not supported by precedence or just plain dangerous.

 

[scoolbubba]

Why not try him just like any other foreign national caught committing a crime under the laws of this nation? Just because he is a terrorist doesn't make him a different breed of criminal...scum no matter which way you look at it.

 

[Flash]

Why not try him just like any other foreign national caught committing a crime under the laws of this nation? Just because he is a terrorist doesn't make him a different breed of criminal...scum no matter which way you look at it.

He is actually a naturalized US citizen.

 

[SkywardET]

Miranda only applies if you want to use the statements from the interrogation later in criminal court against the suspect. If the police believe they already have enough evidence to convict him, there is no reason to mirandize him.

Seems odd that the Miranda warning would ever not be given. When has more evidence ever been a bad thing?

 

[HokiePilot]

Seems odd that the Miranda warning would ever not be given. When has more evidence ever been a bad thing?

Well in this case, the interrogators may be more concerned about finding out what he knows than using a statement against him in court.

Those who wondered where Igot my legal education from may read it from an actual lawyer type here:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

 

[wink]

Seems odd that the Miranda warning would ever not be given. When has more evidence ever been a bad thing?

Miranda is not only the law of the land; it is part of the popular culture unlike any other constitutional right, thanks to cop shows. Because of that it is very misunderstood. But really, all Miranda does is remind stupid criminals of their rights. It doesn't give them a right they didn't already have. Not Mirandizing does not automatically take away any rights. Do we require our citizens to be reminded of their constitutional rights every time they come into play? Somehow I don't see a cop reminding someone they have a right to their gun just prior to relieving them of it. No government official reminds even the feeblest of us we have a right to sue, petition the government for redress, or speak freely. I have picked up people that have committed crimes before my eyes and they insist they have to have their rights read just because cuffs are applied. You can go from first contact with a cop to behind bars and never be Mirandized.

 

[Spekkio]

Miranda is important because cops figured out how to make people feel like they don't have a choice even when they do. Similarly cops in some areas will tell a person "open your trunk, please" vice asking "may I look in your trunk." The person can say no in bith cases, but in the first he has to defy what comes across as an order.

Cops frequently abstain from reading Miranda and formally arresting a suspect to get confessions. "He was free to leave at any time" is what they'll tell the judge.

 

[wink]

If a homeowner voluntarily allows the police to search, it's not a violation of his rights. Agreed on that.

The point is that the Miranda exceptions are being too loosely applied, where it is supposed to be a narrow exception. The idea is to enable actions against imminent threats, not to conduct fishing expeditions when no legitimate threat exists any longer.

The "War on Terror" has claimed at least half of the bill of rights, plus other long-standing legal traditions, such as the right for habeus corpus.

Off the top of my head...

The top of your head isn't good enough. How about some specifics. Don't forget to quote the self-appointed absolute guarantor of our rights, the ACLU. How many cases do they site? How many law suits have they brought? Where is the line at the court house? Be fair now. Cases of individual misconduct by officials outside of the law or establish guidelines don't count. Pejoratives like “rubber stamp” must be supported. Don't forget to specify what type of wiretaps may be conducted without warrants either. Oh, and please do differentiate between foreign nationals captured and detained overseas. It is completely fair to debate how our country has handled that, but you can’t honestly say it has compromised the rights of anyone in the US. That is what we are talking about, our constitutional rights. Not how the US conducts it’s foreign affairs and military affairs. For the sake of brevity, we can skip the torture arguments. Been done here before and it is never a fair fight because some of us can't talk about our early years in training.