It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


When folks from both ends of the political spectrum (you/me, Olbermann/Beck) agree on an issue...that might tell some of these other folks that maybe, just maybe, they're wrong.

I'll venture to guess though, that you and I are much less horrified to find ourselves in agreement, then Olbermann and Beck are...




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Right or wrong, what I think should happen is that he should be entitled to due process and a fair trial. He doesn't get his rights or citizenship stripped... yet. He should receive the rights he was privileged with when he was granted full citizenship last year.

Then, if/when he is found guilty via this due process, revoke his citizenship and expel him from the country.

It's like inviting someone into your home in good faith and giving them all the privileges and accommodations of a respected guest. But if they pull a gun on your family, you call the police and the suspect goes through the system. Then you never let them into your home again. You don't skirt the system by burying them in your back yard but you're not stupid enough to keep them in your home either.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
You don't have to be advised of miranda if the police don't care what you have to say, some times patrol officers with enough information for an arrest will leave miranda up to detectives.. But.. some cops will advise you of miranda right away to make sure everything you say is 'on the record' and admissible.

mccorpse is suggesting something totally abnormal: that all the "facts" be known first.. which from an investigators standpoint is ridiculous.. "facts" are determined in court, not by the police... police make allegations.

Once suspected of a crime anything you say can and will be used against you.. mccain is apparently suggesting waiting until courts determine facts.. either he's senile and has no clue what he's talking about, or is ignorant about a simple tenant of US law.

Follow mccains advice, let the suspect talk ALL he wants outside miranda and risk the suspect admitting guilt / offering evidence that is inadmissible and thrown out.. He is suggesting a procedural change in how police work is usually done, a topic he's not even remotely qualified to speak about... along with a veiled suggestion miranda rights don't matter.


I agree, but I think what McCain wants is while they investigate, don't ask him any direct questions and HOPE that he gives up some "spontainious utternce" which IS admissible in court...problem is the utterance has to be made within a REASONABLE timeframe from the actual event....so bottom line is he is pushing the envelope and it could. or probably would, backfire if his advice is followed.

In a case like this I wouldn't have read Miranda right away either after the arrest, for good reason, but I am talking about waiting maybe 3,4,5 hours....not 3,4,5 days....



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Excuse me....but wasn't this man BORN in the United States?



Then, if/when he is found guilty via this due process, revoke his citizenship and expel him from the country.


I don't recall seeing ANY precedent when any other U.S. citizen, having been found guility of a felony, is then "stripped of his/her citizenship", and "expelled from the country".

"Expelled" to where, exactly, would one ask?

Because he happened to be born to parents of Pakistani origin? So, "expel" him to Pakistan? I fail to see the logic, here.

It would, for example, be AS IF a court were to find a mafia Don guilty of murder, and, after he served his time, to "expel" him 'back' to Italy! Even IF the man had been born in the U.S. in the first place!



I hope this makes sense....





[edit on 5 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Excuse me....but wasn't this man BORN in the United States?



No, he was born in Pakistan. He's a naturalized citizen. He just earned his citizenship last year.



[edit on 5/5/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


He was born in Pakistan, came here to study/work on visas, and was granted full citizenship last year. Look him up on Wiki or read the original article in this thread.

I would not approve of revoking a citizen born here but if you come here and engage in such activity, especially after only having solid citizenship for a year, there is no logical reason they should say. They abused the good faith.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


OK....then, I am not fully aware of the laws governing naturalization status.

Maybe someone with better law understanding can chime in?

To wit: IF a 'naturalized citizen" commits a felony, does then the law allow the 'citizenship' to be "stripped"?


And, is there case history in the law for such an event? Am curious.


[edit on 5 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Much as it pains me and disgusts me sometimes, if someone is a US citizen, they get all the protection that our laws allow. There are bunches of people I wish didn't have such rights but you can't pick and choose which citizens "deserve" our rights spelled out in our laws. You can't just retroactively "strip" someone of their Citizenship without a trial and due process. It may be they don't deserve to be a US Citizen, that doesn't allow us to treat them that way unilaterally. Kings do that to their subjects, which was part of the whole point of us forming America.

That all being said.....since he is a US citizen, he should be tried for his crime and quite possible add the additional charge of Treason on to it. For a naturalized citizen who has been convicted of Treason, then I can see us stripping them of their US Citizenship and whatever penalty Congress deems for Treason.





[edit on 5-5-2010 by pavil]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Source



Denaturalization is how the US government revokes or cancels your US citizenship because you've done something that's contrary to being a US citizen. There are several things that can jeopardize your citizenship:

* Concealing facts or lying to the immigration officials
* Refusing to testify before the US Congress
* Joining certain organizations
* Receiving certain military discharges
...
Membership in Subversive Organizations

Membership in a subversive organization or group within five years after you became a naturalized citizen could lead to revocation of your citizenship. The Communist Party and terrorist groups are the classic examples of "subversive" organizations.




If you Google "Denaturalization cases" you'll probably find plenty.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thanks


Learn a little something new, every day, even by serendipity sometimes...

Here's an expansion, then on his possible fate path:

Tried, in the U.S. and under his still citizenship status until (IF/WHEN revoked) upon a finding of "gulity", should (and that seems pretty obvious) that happen.

Now...."punishment"?

Deport to Pakistan? What guarantee, then that he will serve his entire 'sentence'?

This makes my brain hurt....glad I'm not a lawyer....



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Retired general: GOP is undermining national security to score partisan points





In the wake of the arrest of alleged terrorist Faisal Shahzad, a number of Republican politicians have expressed outrage that the naturalized American citizen is being afforded the constitutional rights of citizenship.

Major General (ret.) Paul Eaton told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Tuesday, "I am a little surprised that we're here to defend our Constitution against a Republican senator and a Republican representative's attack on it."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Peter King (R-NY) have both suggested that it was an error to read Shahzad his Miranda rights and to keep him in the civilian justice system rather than immediately handing him over to the military.

"From a national security perspective, it's damaging," Eaton said of their statements. "Right now, the FBI and our police forces are looking over their shoulder every time they hear a Republican come off with a remark like that. ... Since January of 2009, we have seen a relentless attack on our FBI, on our armed services, on our policemen by the Republican Party. Any opportunity that they can find ... they have pursued. ... I want them to cut it out."

rawstory.com...

I am glad to see that officials, even if they are retired ones are finally speaking out against this furor about Miranda Rights. He is the first one I have seen.

As i had also stated in an earlier post in this thread too, Joe Lieberman has also said the same thing.

He also wants to change the law that revokes naturalization citizenship for those citizens found fighting for a foreign army against the US to include terrorist attacks against US citizens as grounds for revoking citizenship.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by webpirate]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


They don't HAVE to denaturalize him. If they want to, they can toss him in the pokey here where we can keep a good eye on him. In fact, that would be the better choice because once we toss him out on his butt, we have NO control over what happens to him. We can keep him on the no-fly list, but he could change his name. The safest thing would be for us to keep him. Of course, I'm thinking it might not be too safe for HIM to go into prison. I imagine terrorists are right up there with child molesters in the eyes of our prisoners.

We'll have to wait and see what the gub'ment decides to do.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I 100% agree with what he said... But it should have gone "unsaid". He should not be granted the same liberties of a non-terrorist. Water board him?? Hell no ---- I say electro shock therapy. Maybe a few less fingernails after the "interview".



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


That, thank god, isn't the way it works. Laws are there for the protection of society as a whole; we can not, nor should we, pick and choose which ones apply to a particular person. They either apply to everyone equally or they're useless to everyone.

Everyone is entitled to due process if they are citizens of this country. He is. Equal protection. Innocent 'til proven guilty. You can not cherry pick who gets the benefit of these two immutable laws. There is no middle ground, sir... Either they apply to all...or they apply to none.


I 100% agree with what he said... But it should have gone "unsaid". He should not be granted the same liberties of a non-terrorist. Water board him?? Hell no ---- I say electro shock therapy. Maybe a few less fingernails after the "interview".


"unsaid"? ...as if that would make it right? Until he's proven guilty in a court of law, he's not a "terrorist", it's a suspect... As for torture/forceful questioning? I used to be an advocate of "forceful questioning", but where does that end and torture begin? That's a slope that we need to stay off of...far too slippery. Not to mention, how much faith can you have about the information garnered in such a fashion? I would submit, very little...if any.


edit on 5/12/2010 by seagull because: found something else to say...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I guess I am a little curious about the responses in support of stripping US citizens of rights. I see people cheering it on as a good idea but not much logic behind it. Why should this man be stripped of his rights again? Just a nice simple answer will do.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975

Originally posted by GovtFlu
((snip))


I agree, but I think what McCain wants is while they investigate, don't ask him any direct questions and HOPE that he gives up some "spontainious utternce" which IS admissible in court...problem is the utterance has to be made within a REASONABLE timeframe from the actual event....so bottom line is he is pushing the envelope and it could. or probably would, backfire if his advice is followed.

In a case like this I wouldn't have read Miranda right away either after the arrest, for good reason, but I am talking about waiting maybe 3,4,5 hours....not 3,4,5 days....


What bothers me is I'm sure in mccains mind the police / feds are the fact finders.. investigations can take days, weeks, years... it seems to me Miranda has been working just fine for the past 20 years, the govt, IMO, is just trying to erode our rights by injecting the subjective term "terrorism" into low budget criminal acts.. the deck is already stacked against the common street dude, Miranda is one of the last protections we have left that works: if its not broken, don't fix it.

It's easy to get people to incriminate themselves outside Miranda, with no expectation of privacy in a jail cell / police car and all that.. I see no need for politicians to dictate Miranda changes based on the new DC buzz word "terrorism".. cops & prosecutors have been convicting people just fine, besides these supposed acts of terrorism are too few and far between to rate big changes in Miranda.




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join