It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by benrl
Maybe next time there's a big public event, they'll do a quick looksie and have someone check in on the resident folks on the old terror watch list in the area....hmm????
Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by Sphota
"Sets bad precedent for you and me to not Mirandize him at all, seeing as how he is a citizen."
The presumption of innocence is not limited to citizens. The Bill of Rights makes no mention of "citizen."
I find it interesting that the media is saying that his mother "cannot accept that her sons are guilty." I saw this twice in the New York Times. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
Originally posted by Sphota
That being said, guilty or innocent, you still have to Mirandize - if anything, to protect those legitimately innocent.
It's not mine, yours, the media's, or the arresting officer/s' job to pass legal judgment on the accused
And the media can (but maybe shouldn't) release those suspicions to the general public, who, in a more enlightened society, should take a neutral stance...
Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by EarthEvolves
On retreading my post, I realize where the miscommunication is:
We're already on par with historical and contemporary police states, with a separate judiciary for a special class of "criminal" - ("enemy combatant").
When I said, "sets bad precedent...seeing as how he's a citizen," I was directly inferring the situation with Guantanamo and Black sites and the non-Article III courts. This has been a separate track for special cases - so far non-citizens. The next pitiful step will be the blurring and wholesale disappearance of the barrier that separates us citizens from that other judicial process. Once the barrier is tampered with, it will be hard to put the wall back up. And, in my opinion, the equalization of the two systems will center more with the current non-citizen system than anything like what we citizens currently consider (and take for granted as) constitutional rights and correct legal proceedings.
In other words, once the snowball starts rolling, it's harder and harder to go back up to where we started. Not mirandizing a US citizen in situations of serious accusations such as Boston sets the stage for the demonization of the innocent (look at the Elvis impersonator for how easily such "insta-guilt" can occur). This sets precedent to leave definitions open-ended and nebulous for words and terms like "national security exemption," "state's secrets privilege," "terrorism," "probable cause," "threat," and so on.