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

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Do you SERIOUSLY think terrorism only began to exist when it affected Americans?
According to you anyone responsible for terrorist attacks should be torn apart by dogs. You've made this quite clear.

So how do you feel about the fact that Israel was created through terrorism?
Ariel Sharron was a member of the Haganah, a terrorist organization, if you are any way inclined you can read about the terrorist attacks he was responsible for, which caused far more deaths than the Boston attack.

Whats your view point on this?
(Genuinely interested here)

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public safety exemption only lasts until he's formerly charged doesn't it?
Now you can certainly argue that he doesn't have to be charged until he's released from hospital - but it does get increasingly murky now/if he's conscious doesn't it?

Unlike many people on here you at least seem to know what you're talking about and I'm quite interested

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

Do you SERIOUSLY think terrorism only began to exist when it affected Americans?
According to you anyone responsible for terrorist attacks should be torn apart by dogs. You've made this quite clear.

So how do you feel about the fact that Israel was created through terrorism?
Ariel Sharron was a member of the Haganah, a terrorist organization, if you are any way inclined you can read about the terrorist attacks he was responsible for, which caused far more deaths than the Boston attack.

Whats your view point on this?
(Genuinely interested here)

This thread is about ACLU and the Boston bombing and not about any other incidents in the world. There are other threads for those incidents. There is no need to derail this thread. Do you have difficulty keeping to the facts, topic and subject matter of discussion?

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I'm interested in whether your foaming mouth condemnation of terrorism applies to all terrorist or just ones that affect the US.

I'd argue that it is connected, since your passing your opinion off as truth, especially since you're now making personal attacks against people and mentioning Iran.

If you have no desire to discuss it, perhaps you might like to stick to the topic?

Terrorists do not deserve to have any rights whatsoever. They give up those rights as soon as they start destroying people and property. A terrorist goal is to create terror within a society.
The target in this case was the Boston Marathon where 1000s of people were gathered in peaceful assembly. They have no regards for the lives of children women men. They have no regard for anything not even their own lives. Their main thrust is to destroy anything and anyone. Why should they have any rights? You might feel quite differently if your arms and legs were blown off, or your child exploded before your eyes or your parents were smeared all over the pavement. Why should these monsters have rights? They gave them up when they chose to commit such horrendous deeds on an unsuspecting public.

reply to post by Elderlight


But that's just your opinion, not any kind of law. Lynching isn't a valid form of justice. The rule of law exists for a reason.

I think a lot of posters are forgetting that terrorism affect other countries for decades, none of them threw away all their laws.

Added to which, if you think about it logically - one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Case in point - Libya was NATO supporting terrorists? Well yes it was - according to the Libyan government.
Who gets to decide who's a terrorist? At what point does "dealing with terrorist animals" become a war crime?

(well never if its a rich western country seemingly - wonder why that might get some peoples backs up?)

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public safety exemption only lasts until he's formerly charged doesn't it?
Now you can certainly argue that he doesn't have to be charged until he's released from hospital - but it does get increasingly murky now/if he's conscious doesn't it?

Unlike many people on here you at least seem to know what you're talking about and I'm quite interested

I am not even invoking the public safety clause. The Miranda Rights only apply to self incrimination, thousands and thousands of Americans are convicted every year after they weren't Marandized.

If the authorities have enough evidence to convict anyone they don't need your statements or confession. As long as they don't use your statements or any evidence obtained from questioning, none of your rights are violated in a court of law.

Now if they try to use anything obtained through questioning in court. I will be right in tune with this thread, and the ACLU, and be very angry because as soon as any of his statements are used in court ( if the judge allows them) his rights will have been violated.

But until that happens none of his rights are violated.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


So, is stuff he says admissible as evidence to convict other people?

I'm quite interested in this, initially it seems that it's all very close to the legal rights a suspect has in the UK - but having Iooked into it - it's actually quite different!
Case in point - as far as I'm aware there's only two times you don't have the right to remain silent - if you;re asked to provide the key to encrypted information (punishable by 2 years in prison) and if you're the owner of a vehicle and you refuse to provide information on the driver.

what happens if he doesn't talk? enhanced interrogation techniques?
pouring water over his head, or down his throat. pulling his toe or finger nails off. or punching him in the stomach, kidneys, or a beating with a rubber hose any where else that's not visible. or maybe even using dental tools to poke and pull teeth. how about crushing his ____s, or sticking a cattle prod up his butt.

iirc it was only about forty seven years since Miranda came about, i think it was 1966. up until that time many of the above " enhanced interrogation techniques" had and were considered admissible if the suspect signed a confession saying that they gave the confession voluntarily.

you can't get good Intel that way, sometimes they are gonna tell them what they want to hear, just to stop from being tortured. or shut up just for spite. or maybe as a U.S. citizen he knows his 5th and 6th amendment rights.

either way i don't think he will tell the truth or even talk.
and we as U.S. citizens have reverted back in time and our rights.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

So, is stuff he says admissible as evidence to convict other people?

I'm quite interested in this, initially it seems that it's all very close to the legal rights a suspect has in the UK - but having Iooked into it - it's actually quite different!
Case in point - as far as I'm aware there's only two times you don't have the right to remain silent - if you;re asked to provide the key to encrypted information (punishable by 2 years in prison) and if you're the owner of a vehicle and you refuse to provide information on the driver.

So, is stuff he says admissible as evidence to convict other people?

That is a little more of a gray area, but mostly yes. Now given that anytime that the info on other people is used. Any lawyer worth his salt will make a motion to dismiss that evidence. Then it is left up to the judge, and the appellate courts after him.

Case in point - as far as I'm aware there's only two times you don't have the right to remain silent - if you;re asked to provide the key to encrypted information (punishable by 2 years in prison) and if you're the owner of a vehicle and you refuse to provide information on the driver.

Well in the U.S you still have the right in both cases, nobody can make you talk. In the first case you can, not provide them with the key, I sure wouldn't if I was facing a life sentence verses 2 years.

My best advice when you are approached by law enforcement is to tell them immediately. That under advice from your attorney you will not answer any questions, participate in any test without him present.

Miranda doesn't apply until you are arrested, the 5th amendment applies always.

Not only is it unAmerican, it's unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Elderlight
Terrorists do not deserve to have any rights whatsoever. They give up those rights as soon as they start destroying people and property. A terrorist goal is to create terror within a society.
The target in this case was the Boston Marathon where 1000s of people were gathered in peaceful assembly. They have no regards for the lives of children women men. They have no regard for anything not even their own lives. Their main thrust is to destroy anything and anyone. Why should they have any rights? You might feel quite differently if your arms and legs were blown off, or your child exploded before your eyes or your parents were smeared all over the pavement. Why should these monsters have rights? They gave them up when they chose to commit such horrendous deeds on an unsuspecting public.

****APPLAUSE***** to Elderlight. At least someone not taken in by terrorist sympathizers BS.

That animal held in captivity should be glad he did his atrocious deed upon innocent people in US, and not in other countries, because if in other countries, he would have been torn apart on the spot and never taken alive. China and Russia don't give a sh*t about terrorist sympathizers cunning use of the US Miranda rights and any other rights meant for humans and common criminals.

Nor does Germany, France and infact, most countries when they encounter terrorists whom had committed atrocities.

Since 911, humane laws cunningly used by the terrorist sympathizers claimed that because of such laws, there had been no attacks in America. Truth is - it was the efficiency and alertness of DHS, security services and the american people that had prevented more of such attacks from happening, which are on record for all to see as terrorism still occured, not only in US but worldwide.

Terrorist sympathizers can fool the patriotic but ignorant constitution fundamentalists, but they cant fool all.

Like you, I agree that once that terrorist had shown his true colors and had kill, or ordered killings, he deserves NO human applicable rights, as he is no longer a human and had shown NO mercy to his victims even when pleaded to surrender.

That animal should be made to sing like a canary by ALL and ANY means to divulge his secrets, so that more precious human lives be saved when those songs he sung is checked and verified thoroughly.

The ignorant constitution fundamentalists can be blown to bits in their foolish defence of fundamentalism in the face of the scourge of terrorism, if they wish as is their choice, free will and right. Many more sane, rational and innocent americans need not follow their foolhardy and suicidal path. And the terrorist sympathizers can scream and try to fool all they want. No more will mankind be fooled, not after so much innocent blood had been spilt by the animals.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Ah thanks for that, makes a bit more sense now!

reply to post by CarbonBase


That's funny stuff. I like you.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Seeker I BTW am on the same page as you.

I got into this thread because of how ridiculous the idea was that any of his rights will be violated. Well they aren't yet. What the FBI and others want from him is........................

Targeting info for the Drones/ Tomahawks !!!!!!!

reply to post by MaxSteiner


Every post in here is based solely on personal opinion no matter how many supporting laws and rules you supply.
I express what I want to just as you do and will continue to do so in the future.

Someone else's opinion:

Another reason I love Allen West. He’s not afraid of the PC crowd. No, he tells them to get out of the way of the truth:


Let me be very clear, the terrorist attack in Boston and evolving events indicate we have a domestic radical Islamic terror problem in America. We must no longer allow the disciples of political correctness and the acolytes of the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS) to preach to us some misconceived definition of tolerance and subservience. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. Carlos Bledsoe in Little Rock, MAJ Hasan in Ft Hood, the Ft Dix Six, Faisal Shahazad in NYC Times Square — these are just the examples I can type now. When Rep Peter King attempted to have hearings on domestic terrorism he was attacked for being racist. No more excuses. No more apologies. We are in a war of ideological wills, and we shall prevail. Congratulations to all the law enforcement agencies.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Thank you. My posts are generally met with derision but I do tend to "see" clearly. Terrorists surrender their rights as soon as they commit terroristic acts upon humanity anywhere upon this planet. Canada and US are too easy on these global murderous madmen who willingly give up their lives to murder thousands. What a wonderful goal in life - mass destruction. Mercy should not be in the same sentence as terrorist. I do not care what age he or she is or what country they source from originally.

reply to post by MaxSteiner


You are merely positing an opinion as well. The rest of the world, exception being Canada, tend to not waste time. Do you really think that they are innocent? Wow, take the opaque goggles off your merciful eyes and see the reality of what is occurring here. As I said, "...if your arms or legs were blown off....you would have a very different opinion. You sit there in the safety of your home calling for rights of murderous terrorist who have been recorded spreading mayhem? I do not know what to say to people like you.

Well rest assured I feel as much righteous indignation reading your posts as you do mine, the only difference is, I have some sources and the rule of law behind my opinions - you have lynch mob mentality behind yours

How do you feel about the Boston Tea Party? That was a terrorist attack too...

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Your posts in this thread contradict your screen name. You have already condemned this individual based on evidence that has yet to be presented in a court of law. You say this man is an the equivalent to an animal, yet he has yet to be proven guilty in a court of law. How can you claim to uphold liberty and freedom when you convict and sentence people via mob law?

You know what separates us as people from the animals that you condemn? Rule of law, and to forgo it just because someone shows little to no compassion for other human lives is to lower ourselves to that level. We give serial killers their rights and trials when they are captured. Why is this guy an exception to a serial killer? Both show little to no remorse about their actions and unethical treatment of other humans.

Also, stop calling people who are for the Rule of Law terrorist sympathizers. When did any of us agree or support the actions that took place in Boston? We are humanity sympathizers, and every human no matter their actions deserves a fair trial. It is in our Constitution. Besides, if the evidence is as damning as you claim then the DA of Boston should have no trouble convicting this guy and get him the death penalty and failing that, consecutive life sentences in jail with no parole (where we can hope that some additional justice is enacted upon him while there by his fellow inmates).

We need another John Adams for this case. Why do I bring up this founding father? I'm glad you asked. He was the only lawyer to defend the soldiers who fired on the Boston public during the Boston Massacre despite receiving much flack from the mob for his actions. Stand up for liberty, not mob rule.

Boston Massacre

Defended by the lawyer and future American President, John Adams, six of the soldiers were acquitted, while the other two were convicted of manslaughter and given reduced sentences. The sentence that the men guilty of manslaughter received was a branding on their hand.

Oh please don't play the cop out argument that this is offtopic, because we both know that it is very relevant to what is going on now.

The government was determined to give the soldiers a fair trial so there could be no grounds for retaliation from the British and so that moderates would not be alienated from the Patriot cause. After several lawyers with Loyalist leanings refused to defend Preston, he sent a request to John Adams, pleading for him to work on the case. Adams, who was already a leading Patriot and who was contemplating a run for public office, agreed to help, in the interest of ensuring a fair trial.