Gingrich: ‘Terrible, Terrible Mistake’ to Read Bombing Suspect Miranda Rights

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes. When people (politicians and citizens alike) agree that it is okay to hold a US citizen as an enemy combatant and deny the right of due process, we are in very dark days.

This paves the way for citizens to be held as combatants at the descretion of those in power and paves the way for anyone to be held and denied due process regardless of the actuality of the crime.

This is a scary slippery slope and that a politician would condone this is frightening.

Rabbit, your commentary is spot on. One thing I have noticed, and admire, is how we on both sides of the isle and with sometimes fundamental political differences are united in the preservation of liberty and rights that this incident has brought.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This you Must have missed what said,

Bargaining Power compared to what he would have IF he was decalred an Enemy Combatant.

And Yes,. . With that he is NOW afforded all of the amenities that ALL criminals are allowed.

He can PLEA a better deal.

Let's Face it. In the end his ONLY 2 choices that matter are going to be weather he lives or dies. Having been read his rights he now has the ability to Plea BARGAIN. So Yes, . I would Definitely say that he has been given BARGAINING POWER.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What we're seeing is a perfect example of a much talked about meme here on ATS.

The "slippery slope".

Years ago, a terrorist was someone from another land come to America to cause damage.

Now?

As definitions change, so do the populations that inhibit those definitions.

without being given his Miranda rights and the fact that he likely was on powerful pain killing drugs could be used by a good slick defense lawyer to get a lot of his charges dropped.

Miranda rights cut both ways

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

If we throw away what makes us special as a nation and we let slip away those freedoms that define America? What the hell ARE we fighting for, anyway?

We Wrabbit ? WE aren't throwing anything away. Those running everything are making sure we " sacrifice"
our liberties for security. See that word sacrifice has to be viable to what they want for direction. You don't
seem to understand the enemies they really are to us. The folks who own and run everything
are the number 1 enemy of the Earth and the common man and woman. Stop voting for them completely
and stop using their money. They would all die.

Are you done revoking freedom now?

If not, keep going..

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


When I think of Conservatives, I tend to think of you and a few others here that I won't name (So don't be ashamed because of the asshats that presume to speak for you). I think of Newt and McCain and Boehner etc... as the GOP aka the old white guy party. They are shrivelled old men that are so afraid of their own shadows that they think it's okay to have separate rules for separate methods of evil.

The same rights should even apply to terrorists, GITMO should be closed... these elected officials, past or present, should have faith in the justice system that they have a hand in upholding and influencing. Our Constitution and laws either apply to all or we run the risk that they apply to none.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

So you figure that rights should be context based to how the outcome of violating them will be used??

Did I say that? No I didn't. But they wanted to question him for Intel purposes about future attacks or other possible cells within the country. They weren't trying to gather information to be used against him in a criminal trial. And had they gathered anything about the Boston bombings it would have been inadmissable after the first 48 hours.

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Yes. When people (politicians and citizens alike) agree that it is okay to hold a US citizen as an enemy combatant and deny the right of due process, we are in very dark days.

This paves the way for citizens to be held as combatants at the descretion of those in power and paves the way for anyone to be held and denied due process regardless of the actuality of the crime.

This is a scary slippery slope and that a politician would condone this is frightening.

Rabbit, your commentary is spot on. One thing I have noticed, and admire, is how we on both sides of the isle and with sometimes fundamental political differences are united in the preservation of liberty and rights that this incident has brought.

What about the Supreme Court that has ruled before that in certain instances it is legal to designate a US citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant? If any citizen joins the ranks of an enemy we are actively at war with they can be held in such status.

Originally posted by ANNED
without being given his Miranda rights and the fact that he likely was on powerful pain killing drugs could be used by a good slick defense lawyer to get a lot of his charges dropped.

Miranda rights cut both ways

How? They don't need his statements in the criminal trial.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

What we're seeing is a perfect example of a much talked about meme here on ATS.

The "slippery slope".

Years ago, a terrorist was someone from another land come to America to cause damage.

Now?

As definitions change, so do the populations that inhibit those definitions.

Bullocks. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Bill Ayers and the weather underground were terrorists. The person mailing the anthrax letters to congress was a terrorist. The Unabomber was a terrorist. The Atlanta Olympics bomber was a terrorist.

You're totally making things up.

Miranda rights are there for a reason, there is plenty of examples of why it was instituted in the first place. our very own TV cop shows like NCIS, Hawaii 50, etc...rarely show them being read, or if they are, a defendant being questioned, insisting that a lawyer be present....they bring the perp in, and he spills his guts under questioning 99% of the time.
its always better to research why a law was created in the first place, what injustice or misuse of power was the catalyst for the legislation. in our own history, people have died, well after our country was formed, to stop the abuse of wealth and power toward the common man. Miranda rights are a product of the abuse of police power.

He was read his rights after only 16 hours of interrogation.. By law, under these circumstances, you can have 48 hours without reading them, even though he made a confession, which we are told he did, I wonder if they can use it against him? He stopped talking after read miranda... I think he should of been read them but only after the by-law time of 48 hours, since I think they can use his confessions..

Are some people in the world thinking that Miranda Rights are an anti truth serum that prevents the truth from being known.

The 21st century police state, billions spent on employees, equipment and gathering intelligence. Big brother watching and listening everything he can and some things that he isn't suppose to be.

If evidence to convict this man of the bombing or at least attacking police and killing an officer can't be found then the whole system is a failure with what would seem to be incompetent people running it.

Originally posted by starfoxxx
He was read his rights after only 16 hours of interrogation.. By law, under these circumstances, you can have 48 hours without reading them, even though he made a confession, which we are told he did, I wonder if they can use it against him? He stopped talking after read miranda... I think he should of been read them but only after the by-law time of 48 hours, since I think they can use his confessions..

edit on 30-4-2013 by starfoxxx because: (no reason given)

If they have a video showing him placing the backpack beside the 8 year old boy and walking away they don't need his confession. But you're correct that is was a massive error by Holder to Mirandize him after 16 or the 48 hours. He was singing like a lark to interrogators.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Like it or not suspect 2 the younger brother was a naturalized American Citizen. As such he has certain constitutional protections. I can see them using the Miranda right exception but that has limits of 48-72 hours. You cannot make exceptions on the constitution. Fact is the enemy combatant stuff has not worked in virtually any of the cases where they have brought charges in front of a military commission. Sorry but Gingrach is just flat wrong about this. If it was the older brother who was not a citizen I could understand it.

If they take away his Constitutional rights.... Pretty soon it will be yours
They did not deal with the Unabomber that way and did not deal with the Ok City bomber in that way.

.

But you're correct that is was a massive error by Holder to Mirandize him after 16 or the 48 hours.

True, it should have been done as soon as they took him into custody, The more that exceptions to rights are made, the better the chance your rights will no longer exist.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Hunting them like terrorists and then TREATING them (Americans ..like it or not) like "enemy combatants" after arrest and confinement are entirely different things.

Tamerlan was not an American citizen. His brother Dzhokhar was naturalized on Sept 11th 2012, but Tamerlan's citizenship was put on indefinite hold because he was a suspected terrorist.

As a result of an exchange of information with the Russians it seems doubtful that the State Department would have allowed him to become a US citizen.

Had Tamerlan survived should the brothers have been treated differently in the eyes of the law - do you think?

Originally posted by CasaVigilante

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Hunting them like terrorists and then TREATING them (Americans ..like it or not) like "enemy combatants" after arrest and confinement are entirely different things.

Tamerlan was not an American citizen. His brother was, but Tamerlan's was delayed because he was a suspected terrorist. In their contacts with the Russians it seems doubtful that the State Department would have allowed him to become a US citizen.

Had Tamerlan survived should the brothers have been treated differently in the eyes of the law - do you think?

I just wish both were already taken care of.. aka bomb went off on themselves.

48 hours he should of been questioned, Holder and comp. new exactly what they were doing and should be investigated themselves for interrupting police (or fbi) work.. Corruption from the top down!!

Originally posted by starfoxxx

Originally posted by CasaVigilante

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Hunting them like terrorists and then TREATING them (Americans ..like it or not) like "enemy combatants" after arrest and confinement are entirely different things.

Tamerlan was not an American citizen. His brother was, but Tamerlan's was delayed because he was a suspected terrorist. In their contacts with the Russians it seems doubtful that the State Department would have allowed him to become a US citizen.

Had Tamerlan survived should the brothers have been treated differently in the eyes of the law - do you think?

I just wish both were already taken care of..

"They" tried but failed - even though the youngster was unarmed they filled that damn boat with bullet holes anyway. At least a 100 rounds if not more.