John McCain: Do Not Read NYC Bombing Suspect His Rights Untill All Facts Are Known

reply to post by dfens

Of course McCain has no clue what he is talking about. While it really makes no difference in this discussion, MirandavsArizona to which this whole thread is about, is McCain's home state.
It should be noted though, that just because a suspects rights are violated by not informing someone of their rights under the 5th Amendment doesn't mean they can't still be prosecuted. They just can't use anything that the person said under direct questioning against them while they were detained.

Spontaneous statements that are made by suspects are admissible, as is other evidence collected by the agency prosecuting the accused. There is a concept called fruit of the poisonous tree in law. This does not apply to Miranda rights. Other evidence obtained can and has been used to successfully prosecute defendants.

I just thought I would clear that up right here, since I have already been accused by someone in this thread of not knowing the law. Not the person I am replying to just for the record....

Originally posted by webpirate

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
Jihadists should be stripped of American citizenship and sent to prison.

They are not Americans once they enter The Camp of Islam. They become the enemy and need not be afforded any comfort or kindness.

So the distinction here then is because the speak out against the US AND are Muslim, that makes them Jihadists, therefore not allowed any of the legal protections afforded to other US citizens.

No. It is because they engage in violent Jihad as laid down by their holy book The Koran and in the path of their prophet Mohammed. I could care less what they say about my country. My country is not the problem.

By their own laws, they cannot be citizens of the countries in which they reside. They belong to Islam not to any man-made structures and are governed by Sharia not Natural Law.

They are jihadists because the tried to blow up my fellow citizens in an effort to spread their religion, Islam, and glorify their god, Allah.

They could jihad in Beslan, or Mumbai, or London but it is still jihad and it still done all for the glory of Islam and Allah.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


LOL!

Were you making a joke, and I missed it?

...that is why he has done a 360 on most of his past views on some issues.

Reminds my of the joke where the (not so clever) pilot says, "Lets' do a 360 and get the hell outta here!"

The Leopard does not change his spots!
McCain and the Republicans are just the same as the Bush administration, in fact THEY WERE the Bush administration! They have only distanced themselves from Bush himself, not the ruinous policies of the Bush era.
They have learned nothing, and only want to regain power to continue their greed!
DON'T FALL FOR THESE TRAITORS! Think what you wish about Obama, but the Repubs are demonstrably worse.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


How do I begin to express how very wrong you are...

So to defeat an enemy, you become that which you would defeat? Who do you deny right to representation next? Hmmm... Could someone decide that you don't need the protection of the law? The law either applies to everyone, or it's useless to everyone. There is no middle ground.

reply to post by weedwhacker


LOL...no...unfortunately I was not trying to make a joke.

Just a good ol' fashion brain fart...hey...it happens.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by mike_trivisonno

 

How do I begin to express how very wrong you are...

So to defeat an enemy, you become that which you would defeat? Who do you deny right to representation next? Hmmm... Could someone decide that you don't need the protection of the law? The law either applies to everyone, or it's useless to everyone. There is no middle ground.

How wonderfully poetic. Too bad Islam cares little for individual liberty.

An understanding of Islam and Sharia would reveal to you that your notions of law, fairness, and rights are totally alien and blasphemous to adherents of Islam.

I am not going to become a jihadist. Muslims become jihadists. Non-muslims lose their heads.

reply to post by webpirate


Yes, snuck that barb in there pretty sneakily.

If you know the law so well, show me in case law, precedent or Constitution where Human Rights has anything to do with the US of A.

Miranda Rights are idiotic in this day and age. They have nothing to do with anything.

The courts have backed up LEO's lying to an accused is all well and good.

So what does Miranda Rights really have anything to do with anything?

If you do not know your rights and do not assert them, that is your own damn fault.

I am sure everyone knows that if you are not charged with a crime, the LEO's do not have to Mirandize someone. They can say any damn thing they want. To anyone. Period.

They have a limited window to use this though. I believe it to be 48 or 72 hours, I do not remember which. I believe then they can Mirandize and continue the interrogation. UNTIL the accused actually asks for a lawyer and demands the interrogation not continue, they can lie and scheme all they want.

Do not be disingenuous.

Of course in the day and age of the Patriot Act, everything is out the window.

You can argue all you want about human rights or whatever. Does not mean it is true.

I am not arguing either way that this is bad or good, I am stating the procedure of the government in these issues.

Using it as a political maneuver is SOP I guess.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
My country is not the problem.

I'm fairly sure that the other side would disagree. Strangely enough, this is often the case in a conflict.

By their own laws, they cannot be citizens of the countries in which they reside.

which laws would they be, exactly?

They are jihadists because the tried to blow up my fellow citizens in an effort to spread their religion, Islam, and glorify their god, Allah.

So what?
If he were a tea-bagger on a rampage, would his actions be more acceptable to you?
What the hell does it matter why he did it? (IF he did do it)

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
Bytheir own laws, they cannot be citizens of the countries in which they reside.

We do not follow the laws of other countries, or religions, though. We have our own laws. So when someone is a citizen of OUR country, and is suspected of a crime committed in OUR country, they must be handled by OUR laws. Other country's or religious laws are TOTALLY irrelevant. See how that works?

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


So, I ask again... To defeat them, you would become them? Seriously? He, regardless of his actions, or in this case, possibly attempted actions, he is entitled to those same protections that you or I are entitled... Matters not his crime, muchless his religious affiliation.

The law must be applied equally for it to mean anything.

This ain't the middle east. Sharia law has nothing to do with this, not one bloody thing.

The insistence of some hailing this as being related to Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Extremism has me doubting objectivity here.

We'll find out for certain soon enough, legally or otherwise, no?

"No right to remain silent" .... interesting (if not fascist) position ... considering.

if he has more information that would save lives that information should be got by any means necessary am sorry but everyone knows taking life is wrong .Chances are hes just a tool used for this job the people he works for there far more dangerous .

Now, I will state my position on Miranda Rights and the use of these techniques.

If a defendant is STUPID enough to open their mouths to a LEO, they deserve to use these things against them.

Sorry, I could care less about court precedent. I believe in the Constitution and the RIGHTS afforded me by that document.

These rights are not given by that document, they only exist because they are inherent to all people.

Show me in the Constitution where you have the right to remain silent.

Bill of Rights-

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Either exert your rights or lose them!

For instance, the Hutaree did well in their knowledge of their rights. So cry me a river, if you do not know your rights, you do NOT even deserve them.

Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Sigh. If we continue to follow your advice, we will become a "democratically elected" Islamic country. If you cannot recognize a coordinated jihad effort and what it means to the host nation historically, you do a disservice to the people who get killed.

We have no obligation to submit ti Islam or Allah in any fashion or allow our system to be used as a weapon against us.

Oh well, Islam needs dhimmis too.

reply to post by Maxmars


The right to remain silent comes from precedent.

It comes from the basic right to not incriminate oneself.

If you feel it is fascist, why do you not rail against it all the time?

This has been used for a very long time. A long time. Ask the many LEO's here.

As I said, if you do not know your rights and do not use them, who's fault is that?

You guys are stuck in 1990.

Let me know when you have read up on the enemy. Until then watch in bewilderment as your social institutions and cultural touchstones are slowly eroded away "mysteriously". Ponder and argue over why your laws and justice system and are increasingly incapable of dealing with the Islamic non-jihad, non-religious, non-problem.

Then one day, your institutions will be gone and you will be a dhimmi and you won't know why or how it happened. And all your lofty ideals will be sent to the dustbin of history.

Your laws mean nothing.

reply to post by endisnighe


I am BY NO MEANS an attorney.

However, this discussion reminded me of the video below, one I had stumbled across some years ago....it is long, but WELL worth a listen, and a watch...



Take it as you wish.......

reply to post by webpirate


But, does the patriot act, and the enemy combatant clause be used to just detain and shut him up without regards to actually completing a real investigation? What are your thoughts about the implications? I kind of think that they are interrogating him at length, but without those express rights, won't they just cherrypick whatever evidence they get to paint a tidy case of guilty?

McCain is a typical scuzzball, but people listen to him for some ungodly reason. He's made laws and blocked legislation that might incriminate him, but it also might be a push to enact tougher laws that certain people are immune to, unlike our kind.

I really think, that if anything, this 'jihadist' is the patsy. It also seems that they are pretty lazy with their terror incidents in recent years. Maybe they are that dumb. But, how was 911 so successful, in the terrorism terms, and all these little incidents are thwarted at the last second?

I don't mean to derail the thread, just some curious questions.

I agree, that this is more about a pol shooting from the hip and not injecting anything except for vitriol. I also think it may be part of a concerted effort to deligitimize the sort of rights we used to be accustomed to.

I mean, if law enforcement has the ability to detain anyone indefinitely based on trumped up charges, with all intel being twisted to suit LE's intentions, wouldn't you think that they would use that more for their benefit as opposed to the public at large?

Or are they just saying that there is no right to a lawyer and they will be held until they fess up?

All I know is that it wouldn't surprise me, and it will set precedents that won't work in most peoples benefit.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I have watched that video. I saw it here.

Yes, the first thing I usually do when talking to a police officer is ask if I am being detained.

I actually used that technique awhile back. LEO's are allowed to say almost anything to you to get info. Almost anything.

The Miranda Rights do give you some coverage, but not much. Until they actually charge you with something, they do not have to Mirandize you.

Excellent time to place that video.

If you do not know your rights, you do not have them.