ACLU: Denying Miranda rights to marathon bombing suspect is 'un-American'

Ah, Bananana beat me to the Public Safety Exception.

Also, I've been told by detectives that Miranda Rights are just that "Rights"...that in modern law enforcement you HAVE the right to remain silent, but the Miranda Warning they recite is merely a courtesy. Ignorance of the law is not protection from it (Ignorantia juris non excusat).

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to a attorney and to have one with you during questioning.

Miranda: Rights of Silence
What the Miranda Rights Say

Apparently each jurisdiction can form their own wording of the Miranda rights. In other words, there is not a cut and dried formula.

1st 3 points - please read the rest - very informative.

The exact wording of the "Miranda Rights" statement is not specified in the Supreme Court's historic decision. Instead, law enforcement agencies have created a basic set of simple statements that can be read to accused persons prior to any questioning.
Here are paraphrased examples of the basic "Miranda Rights" statements, along with related excerpts from the Supreme Court's decision.
1. You have the right to remain silent.
The Court: "At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent."
2. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
The Court: "The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court."
3. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning.
The Court: "...the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today. ... [Accordingly] we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today."

An Ironic Ending for Ernesto Miranda

Ernesto Miranda was given a second trial at which his confession was not presented. Based on the evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and rape. He was paroled from prison in 1972 having served 11 years.

In 1976, Ernesto Miranda, age 34, was stabbed to death in a fight. Police arrested a suspect who, after choosing to exercise his Miranda rights of silence, was released.

That was quick. Terrorist sympathizers are already out in force.

Fools!

Terrorists and their lapdog supporters hide amongst us, respect no human laws, kill and maim as they wish, and yet expect us mankind to threat these wild beasts with human laws and compassion??

How more stupid does mankind wanna be, after being made total fool of for decades?

....sigh.....

reply to post by elouina

You are a terrorist because I say so.
I saw you doing XY.
I say, lets pick you up at your home,
accuse you of terrorism and murdering someone else,
deny your miranda rights,
lock you up and everything you say, every breath will be used against you.

I´m the guy walking in the room where you´re waiting for me. I look at you and I say "Let´s waterboard the asshole until he admits.

No wait, let´s just shoot you in the head at the part where we pick you up, problem solved.

Congratulations, really
This must have been by far the dumbest thing I´ve read this year on ATS, and I posted on that "Believe it or not" thread minutes ago.

I think he will be Mirandized soon. We don't know what condition he is in currently. Yes he's an American Citizen and entitled to the Rights the rest of us are.

reply to post by CasaVigilante


Your reply sum's up my post. The Miranda rights are about self incrimination.

Any evidence gathered before or after is valid and will be used in court. (excluding statements suspect gave after arrest)

They don't need any of his statements, and would rather have information.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


It's not so much "terrorist sympathy" as just wanting people to have their facts straight. The general American populace tends to rely more heavily on the law they see depicted in TV shows than they do actually researching and understand the real law we must abide by.

THAT'S how solid cases get thrown out. People thinking they know the law when all they've seen is Hollywood's depiction of it.



PS: "How more stupid"? ...really?

I am glad you mentioned the critical word - get the facts straight.

The thing is - how many are even interested in the facts? They seemed to care more about 'false flag theories', constitution fundamentalism and bashing people who respond to CLEAR & PRESENT threats effectively.

But that's ok, this is a free country and everyone has a right to express their freedom and their stupidities. Without them, how can others be proven right and how can there ever be checks and balances if everyone is smart, think alike and without fools?

ACLU works within the framework of the legal processes. They should know better than to offer 'human rights' to animals such as the terrorists captured. From the start, there are witnesses and even records of their actions, and even if one finds being a terrorist sympathizer self satisfying, how can one deny the fact that he ran over his own blood brother and drag his body for a few feet, and not even stopping to account for his act which a normal human would do, but ran away from the scene with guns and ammo with the intention to kill even more humans?

Why bother even treating this animal as a human when he has shown ABSOLUTELY NO MERCY to humans, even to his own brother, in FULL sight of everyone?

I know that his defense attorneys will later try to make it look like he was an unwilling conspirator to his elder brother, so that he can go off scot free or with parole after 3 years. The evidences of his acts are beyond any spin a liar....opps...typo...lawyer can ever hope to magically spin.

But we cannot deny the fact that if he was an unwilling accomplice to his brother, he could have surrendered anytime, as he was not on a leash attached to his brother. He did not, and even fought an armed battle with the police forces who adviced him to surrender.

In truth, it is not necessary that someone elder is the leader. Some just grow old and never grow up, and have to be lead by a younger guy.

This is not someone who was given a bad name and set up to be hanged. Search for the facts - his own acts, witnessed and even caught on camera, did him in and dug himself a grave, and proven himself as a wild animal. So why bother with applying human compassionate laws on him, when he respects NO human law at all nor shown any human mercy to others?

Some of his victims may even try to be compassionate towards him, for many are far more evolved than that animal, and forgive him.

BUT that animal is not some lone nut. He REPRESENTS a collective group of sick individuals whom are and had been hellbent for the oblivon of mankind or at least, the bowing to their demands. FOR DECADES, terrrorist sympathizers had FORCED mankind to apply humane and just laws to these animals.

And the result? Only MORE atrocities had been comitted by these animals for decades in return for our goodwill and stupidity to bow to terrorists sympathizers demands throughout terrorism around our world.

High time we end the BS and send out a clear signal to them - NO more to treating them with compassionate humane laws when they had shown none to humanity. They will be treated as animals, regardless if they manage to commit their henious acts or have links to such organisations, right up to their masterminds hiding in foreign lands.

Kissing their butts had not worked for decades anyway, so what have we to lose anyway? They can only kill a few of us, and had done so for decades, BUT they can't kill us ALL, and that makes them and their potential future recruits as failures and losers, achievers of nothing that even a village idiot can understand.

reply to post by starsyren

THAT'S how solid cases get thrown out. People thinking they know the law when all they've seen is Hollywood's depiction of it.

Do you agree, or disagree that they issue of his Miranda rights will have very little bearing on prosecution of this case ?

As long as anything he say's while not under protection of those rights, is not used against him.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Search for the facts - his own acts, witnessed and even caught on camera, did him in and dug himself a grave, and proven himself as a wild animal. So why bother with applying human compassionate laws on him, when he respects NO human law at all nor shown any human mercy to others?

Exactly because there's a line that separates us from the "wild animals" we dont behave like them. Or at least we try not to.

All of these chest thumping patriotic "treat em like an animal" comments would be ABSOLUTELY fine if the US wasn't pissing all over international law on a frequent basis.
A country that practices Rocket assassination on another nations soil without declaring war or showing regard to the "collateral damage" shouldn't act so shocked when it happens to them.

If you're willing to drop all civil rights and the rule of law whenever you're hurt the terrorists have won and your society has failed. Still given that Guantanamo bay is still operational there's good grounds for saying they won some time ago...

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
All of these chest thumping patriotic "treat em like an animal" comments would be ABSOLUTELY fine if the US wasn't pissing all over international law on a frequent basis.
A country that practices Rocket assassination on another nations soil without declaring war or showing regard to the "collateral damage" shouldn't act so shocked when it happens to them.

If you're willing to drop all civil rights and the rule of law whenever you're hurt the terrorists have won and your society has failed. Still given that Guantanamo bay is still operational there's good grounds for saying they won some time ago...

edit on 21-4-2013 by MaxSteiner because: removed a statement about irony

Do stick to the facts.

WHAT international law had US pissed on and 'on a frequent basis'? Is that an opinion or a fact? It is because of people like you that pisses on US by passing falsehoods and lies that make the naive and foolish believe you, and presume USA is such when it is not.

If you mean just that drone targetting, again - do stick to the facts. US had worked in agreement with the host nations to conduct such, not for fun, but to target and destroy those animals whom had refused dialogue and had continued to plan and slaughter OTHER innocent men, women and children.

Rule of Law applies only to those who subscribe to it and all of them are humans. Only animals have no respect for the rule of law and thus their abusement of it and even making use of it to kill us. The threat of terrorism is real and laws dealing with those animals have to be practical as they are not humans. How many more innocent dead does the butt kissing terrorist sympathizers want?

Do end the BS. This site is not other sites that one can freely toss lies and falsehoods. This is ATS, and its motto is to deny ignorance.

reply to post by gladtobehere


He's a terrorist foreign national.
Of that there is no question.

They should stick him in Guantanamo.
I'm all for laws and stuff. But when you go blowing up people and shooting and killing cops.
You're beyond rehabilitation.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Pot calling the kettle black?
Unlike you however I'll actually provide some examples:

We could start with the US's use of shotgun rounds banned under the Geneva convention, perhaps the CIA's many dubious actions around the world or the illegal trade sanctions and tariffs which happen frequently whenever it is discovered that US industry isn't competitive.

Looking at the more recent example of Iraq (which even Richard Perle admits was illegal) we could just focus on the treatment of prisoners and find plenty of infractions - let alone if we look at the torture flights - of course countries which knowingly allowed stopovers are also in contravention of international law.

Navi Pillay the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has described Guantanamo Bay and the indefinite incarcerations as being "in clear breach of international law.". Under the Geneva convention "prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated" and "likewise ... must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity"

Regarding the drones - you currently have a framework in place where the president can authorize a strike against anyone, anywhere in the world without any checks or balances imposed upon him.
Many of these attacks have occured without the prior permision of the elected governments of these sovereign states, not just Pakistan but Somalia and Yemmen which is in and of itself illegal never mind the fact that some of the attacks clearly fit the UN's 6 grave violations: childrenandarmedconflict.un.org...
(and of course since it's all classified without any oversight we have to assume that the ones we know about are the worst)

That's just a few examples off the top of my head many of these are ongoing and extremely controversial.
I'm not saying other countries don't of course but I really don't see how you can claim the US doesn't routinely flout international law.

Edit ====>
I find it immensely amusing that you tell me to stick to facts then begin foaming at the mouth and spout this opinion:

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Rule of Law applies only to those who subscribe to it and all of them are humans. Only animals have no respect for the rule of law and thus their abusement of it and even making use of it to kill us. The threat of terrorism is real and laws dealing with those animals have to be practical as they are not humans. How many more innocent dead does the butt kissing terrorist sympathizers want?

If we're applying that, how do you feel about the fact that much of the IRA's funding used to come from Boston?
Would that fact have justified the UK Bombing Boston? Of course not, but according to the rampant bigotry on display in these sorts of threads it would have, might be worth taking a while to think about that.


===>

Don't wanna cascade attack this thread so I'll just add some linky dinks at the bottom:

Here's a very interesting Guardian Article about how the Drone attacks flout 50 years of international law:
www.guardian.co.uk...

Heres a Reuters piece on the Human rights violations at Guantanamo:
www.reuters.com...

Wikipedia has a nice article on US Warcrimes with lots of sources:
en.wikipedia.org...

Some more examples here:
socialistworker.org...

reply to post by grey580


No he is an American Citizen, yes he's a terrorist (I believe he's 100% guilty) but we have already seen that label misused in other cases. No one is sympathizing with this man by saying he should be Mirandized. Liberty for all is more important than punishing one person. I think it's important to let the government know we won't let our emotions rule us. We want this man to be convicted and sentenced in an American court of law not an arbitrary stroke of a military pen.

reply to post by gladtobehere


"We hold these truths to be self evident"

"All men are created equal"

These aren't notions that should be taken lightly, for if they are we all suffer. They are blunt and blatant. All humans have these rights. It is our duty, as Americans, to support this and pursue it.

Originally posted by CasaVigilante

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
Considering that Thomas Jefferson shot a man for treason on the white house law - I'd say that terrorist is lucky, or maybe not considering what life he will have in federal prison for life as a traitor to his country.

Its a myth. This story originated in the movie Swordfish (2001), where it is mentioned by John Travolta's character, Gabriel Shear. Thomas Jefferson never personally killed anyone, nor were there any treason executions or convictions during his presidency.

edit on 21-4-2013 by CasaVigilante because: (no reason given)

Oh I didn't know that. I grew up hearing my step grand-father and step-father and well everybody who I grew up around saying that. Military family.

Thank you.

Cirque

reply to post by elouina


First -- we have to prove that he is guilty in a court of law. We can't just go "Oh - he did it! GUILTY!" That's not how civilization works.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Off topic post.

I just wanted to say SeekerofTruth, these past few days I've starred many of your posts throughout the different threads. I think you have brilliant thoughts and insights into this chaos.

Thanks for being here. A voice of reason in madness. I friended you so that on slow times when this site gets a little boring and dry, I can go back and read some of what you've posted in the past.

I'd give you more stars if I could.

Cirque

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
That was quick. Terrorist sympathizers are already out in force.

Fools!

Terrorists and their lapdog supporters hide amongst us, respect no human laws, kill and maim as they wish, and yet expect us mankind to threat these wild beasts with human laws and compassion??

How more stupid does mankind wanna be, after being made total fool of for decades?

....sigh.....

Your use of words like "lapdog" and "sympathizers" makes it impossible to take anything you say seriously. You demonize those you argue against to such a degree that I am unsurprised that you support a position that calls "terrorists" words like "animals".