Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I dislike Newt as much as most but to be fair, he isnt the only person saying this.
Does anyone here an outcry from ANYONE about how the 4th amendment was trampled during
the search for the bombers?




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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.


Well, the thing is... This whole story is about how another court and Judge, based on those same laws, precedent and American values DID rule that this man retained his right to remain silent. Then, and only after that, Newt is saying that Judge was wrong and suggests we all need to see things changed.

There is a fundamental issue at stake here and I think it's what defines the whole matter. RIGHTS are inherent and not "granted" or 'decided' on who gets what, under what circumstances. They are bestowed upon each of us by our Creator. However one may define that word. The document which sits at the very core of our nation's foundation says so and says it clearly with no footnotes or exceptions noted.

When we, as a nation, start playing with those terms for convenience and expediency, they are not RIGHTS for anyone any longer. They've become privileges, allowed us by our Government. NOT Rights bestowed by nature and "Self Evident".

So, are we to be a nation with rights or privilege? Prior to Newt outright questioning the logic and judgement (literally) of a member of the Judicial Branch of our Government, that wasn't nearly as much a question. However, Newt's sentiment seems to ring true and hit home with a scary % of people.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I'd like to reply to another point in a more general way because it could too easily become vicious if directed specifically and I'm simply not going there. However, the point must be made either way.

The dead brother was a citizen. Naturalized or not, a citizen is a citizen. The one in custody was not a citizen but a perm. legal resident by way of his green card/residency card and in the pipeline to become a naturalized citizen. Whether that coulda/woulda/shoulda happened is 100% beside the point.

There are 10's of millions of Americans...Yes, AMERICANS...who are such by virtue of perm. residency cards and as loyal to this nation as any individual who was born here. To draw some distinction between those natural born and those naturalized is for Presidential requirements (
) and really, little else in terms of importance. To attempt to single out those who are perm. legal residence by green card as being less deserving of those rights we all have as 'Self Evident', is the most ugly form of discrimination ...regardless of national or ethnic origins.


Additionally, much is being made of foreign connections in terms of the rightness of denying rights and just pretending that legal perm. residency status didn't exist, ergo, he was just a foreigner and why should we care? Well... WHAT foreign influence would we be talking about?? Idealism? Maybe...and maybe not. That's yet to be determined and simply idealism is absurd to claim anyway. We have Supreme Court Justices in open court who have suggested United Nation and European Union Precedents should stand for something in the American Justice System. Isn't THAT foreign idealism as an influence? Yes... It absolutely is ...and no more or less harmful in it's OWN right than whatever these two are had claimed to others they took inspiration and not direction from.

If they were members or had actual direct ties to foreign organizations? Well.. You know, it still doesn't erase the fact that doesn't make an Enemy Combatant. Those terms aren't just loosey goosey to whatever we feel like making them mean. They have definition.

_____

These two were CRIMINALS with political motivation. Yet, CRIMINALS nonetheless. We, as a nation, have seen and dealt with politically motivated criminals before, without trimming the Constitution in irrevocable ways in the process. Our system can more than handle dealing with their kind again.

By contrast and for definition to those a bit slow on the uptake here when it comes to seeing differences? The Germans who were caught after coming onto U.S. Beaches with the sole intent of making war against the United States during World War II (There were German nationals delivered by submarine for precisely that purpose if anyone wasn't aware) were enemy combatants. That is the level I feel, and our Court system tends to agree, it must reach before saying a man no longer qualifies as a criminal (whatever the motivations) and becomes subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States Military as an Enemy. Short of that line or something very similar in nature, they are still just scumbag criminals. Perhaps record breaking? Perhaps arch villain types in the most classic sense, but still ...criminals.

We don't re-define the rights of Criminals in the United States out of expediency to the moment. When that begins and without Court challenge to check the abuse in it's tracks? We will THEN have taken the first steps into the *REAL* Police State so many claim we're already IN. We are not in a Police State right now. The Judge's intervention to save, not the scumbag in the Hospital bed, but over 200 years of precedent to legal protections here, show that to be the case. We're still a land of freedom, however precarious that position now is. We ARE still a land of Law, not reactionary action, however much longer that lasts.

The Judge who ended the questioning without Miranda, as everyone in this nation is entitled to (There is NO "citizenship test" to that Right. Never HAS been. Never SHOULD be) has insured we may enjoy one day more without that Police State becoming more than fears and thoughts.

We should thank His Honor, while still hoping that very same system BURIES the punk this was all done for ...by the law and within that system of law. Otherwise? We truly have nothing left.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd like to reply to another point in a more general way because it could too easily become vicious if directed specifically and I'm simply not going there. However, the point must be made either way.

The dead brother was a citizen. Naturalized or not, a citizen is a citizen. The one in custody was not a citizen but a perm. legal resident by way of his green card/residency card and in the pipeline to become a naturalized citizen. Whether that coulda/woulda/shoulda happened is 100% beside the point.


You are dead wrong. What is the matter with your research skills? You are embarrassing yourself here - Tamerlan was NOT a citizen but his brother Dzokhar was a citizen as of Sept.2012 as I stated before. (see below)

Please do the work OK?
Tamerlan Tsarnaev's citizenship application was pending AS IN HELD UP!!!


WASHINGTON -- Despite reports that Tamerlan Tsarnaev harbored resentment over the U.S. denying his citizenship application, the application was still pending at the time of the Boston Marathon bombings, a law enforcement source said Sunday.

Tamerlan, 26, filed an application for citizenship six months ago and immigration officials had not yet made a decision on his case at the time of the Boston Marathon bombings, the source said.

Immigration officials were aware of a domestic violence charge on his record and also knew that the FBI had questioned him, the source said, but it's unclear what Tamerlan was told about his prospects for citizenship.

Days after the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three and injured more than 170, investigators are still trying to understand the motives of of the two prime suspects, Tamerlan and his younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19. Authorities have begun to delve into the details of how the brothers came to be in the United States.

The Tsarnaevs, ethnic Chechens, immigrated with their family from Russia about a decade ago. They were granted refugee status and settled in Cambridge. Tamerlan was a permanent resident and held a Russian passport.

A previous bid for citizenship was documented by Toronto-based photographer and scientist Johannes Hirn, who published a 15-page photo essay that depicted Tamerlan training for the U.S. Olympic team. The photo essay, titled, "Will Box for Passport," said that Tamerlan hoped to become a naturalized U.S. citizen by earning a place on the team.

But an official with USA Boxing, the official body that oversees amateur boxing, said Tamerlan was ineligible to compete in Olympic qualifying events because he was not a citizen.

Tamerlan's brother Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen on Sept. 11, 2012. He was a student at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth, where various friends described him as social and outgoing.



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



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CasaVigilante
 



You are dead wrong. What is the matter with your research skills? You are embarrassing yourself here - Tamerlan was NOT a citizen but his brother Dzokhar was a citizen as of Sept.2012 as I stated before.

Please do the work OK?
Tamerlan Tsarnaev's citizenship application was pending AS IN HELD UP!!!


Did you read anything in what I actually wrote or did you just skim it to get enough to launch an attack on me? A good deal of my point was based in the fact that Tamerlan is a PERM. RESIDENT, on a Resident-Green Card. Not a citizen. A Perm. Resident. That is what a Green Card is. That is it's purpose and meaning. The fact there is a distinction and important difference was, in fact, a key point to the post you have just made a reply to.

The important point being though ...that accords him no less in Constitutional Protection than a full blood, natural born American Citizen ...unless he wanted to run for President or hold a Security Clearance, among a few key areas that status DOES preclude a man from.

Please, do me the service of at least reading what I write in it's entirety if you choose to reply to it. Particularly if that reply is to come in the form of attack. It's the least you can do as a simple courtesy, IMO.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

No attack there - sorry if you took it that way. I was just so amazed at the in-credulousness of your assessment of the matter..........Green card Schmeen card - there's a world of difference between them.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CasaVigilante
 


Excuse me? My Mother entered this nation when she was a little girl at Detroit-Windsor. Legally and by the regulations at the time. Her and her sisters went through the Medical requirements of the times and all other things asked of them while their parents (My Grandparents) sought a better life the LEGAL way.

My Mom, still with us and strong to this day, has in her purse a Green Card. It is a Permanent Residency "Permit" issued by the United States Government and a modern update to the one she has carried on her since the day she was old enough to have her very own issued to her.

There are many reasons and many issues for why a person may or may not go the full route to naturalization. Sometimes, it's just a matter of the red tape making attempt after attempt too much to keep screwing with when, for ALL intents and purposes of daily life, Perm. Residency functions as the SAME THING.

The idea that people would start picking apart a good % of those Americans who, while not born here, are still part and parcel to the success of our nation simply because they have a Green Card instead of a full blown natural citizenship is obscene and a slap across the face of every legal immigrant residing in this diverse nation of ours.

This is precisely the problem with dehumanizing scum like the Boston Bombers. It's a TINY step to carrying that right on past the event of the moment and the passion it creates ...to hurt FAR more people. As another noted, consult history for how this was done to great effect against Japanese Americans in World War II. We've had this happen before in this nation, so it's no theory or guess work as to where it can and WILL lead if left unchecked. It's only a question of degree and circumstance beyond that point.

....and the veiled attack in the second reply was no more impressive than the outright one in the first.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Rights are guaranteed, not conditional.

Joining with a group actively engaged in a war with or against the US is a bit different than acting alone even if the end result might be the same (harm to Americans). In the former instance, a citizen joining ranks with a proclaimed enemy should still receive due process-as a citizen. They might be considered enemy combatants according to the SCOTUS, but they are still first and foremost citizens, and rights are guaranteed not conditional. The courts can do just as well without a military tribunal.

The problem is that these rights are too often and too easily being pushed aside and suspended for convenience, and this is what is frightening.

And when the label of "terrorist" expands to include domestic nonviolent groups (such as environmentalists), the chain of the' suppression of citizens' rights is concerning.
edit on 30-4-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Being tried as a regular criminal in the justice system isn't exactly a hero's treatment. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

I'm amused by the implication that the apparent decision to consider this man a terrorist is so weak that it can't withstand a technicality.

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



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel



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.


What are you talking about? There are rare exceptions to Miranda, the Supreme Court has affirmed this. The public safety exception exists.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


That judge was sent by Holder's DOJ. The same Holder who spent his career defending terrorists. The FBI was stunned because of this call as they were only 16 hours into the 48 hour _



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Well, on THIS one....even Holder can get it right once in awhile. I've followed the challenges of the Gitmo prisoners closely as it's developed. One of the key problems has been that the majority of evidence against them, while perfectly good and even corroborated in many cases by other evidence, has originated from aggressive interrogation and methods ruled questionable at best and classified at worst.

It has so badly tainted and screwed up the cases against even KSM, of all people, we may NOT get a clear conviction against many or any of them in a court which matters to say a fair trial was ever offered.

Perhaps they actually had a moment of clarity and decided to skip the "feel good" action this time for what will actually stand and work in the long term for delivering Justice as our system defines that.

It sure beats the other alternatives. Either seeing this guy walk free over a lack of "legal" evidence which can ever be used by our rules and laws of admissibility, or worse, just holding him without trial forever....as it seems we're all determined to do on the others taken in similar fashion and at least started down the same path as this one was in Boston.

I hope..for our nation's sake and credibility, the Judge caught the process before it crossed lines that cannot be returned from .....as HAS now happened in too many other cases which should have been slam dunk death cases.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


What does enhanced interrogation methods have to do with the 19 year old Boston marathon terrorist?

and as pointed out earlier, the only information that would be inadmissible would be a confession. But the authorities didn't need that to convict the kid.
edit on 30-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Don't worry. A jury of typical american citizens will convict on filmy evidence if the case isn't rock solid even without a confession. He isn't getting free.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Don't worry. A jury of typical american citizens will convict on filmy evidence if the case isn't rock solid even without a confession. He isn't getting free.


I never implied he was gonna get away free. If the FBI has a video of him placing the bomb behind the 8-year old boy and walking away he'll get the lethal injection.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Have you ever served Jury Duty? Been in a courtroom for anything beyond traffic court or had any level of involvement with the Criminal Justice System? You questions tell me you haven't. The concept at issue here is commonly referred to as 'Fruit of the Poison Tree'. It's a major problem and it is almost impossible to make right once it's gone wrong.

People can talk all day long about how 'this works and that won't' but in the end, only one opinion matters. That's the opinion of a man in a black robe sitting at the head of the Court Room. On concern of immediate overruling by appellate level for a bad decision, that man will rule on evidence based on law and precedent. Precedent on this is clear. If knowledge of anything came to police by means not admissible in a U.S. Court, that evidence cannot be used unless 100% independent means can be established without ever having heard or known it by the first methods improperly used.

So, if we NEVER plan to try someone, then questioning them outside Miranda warning probably won't "legally" hurt. Morally and Constitutionally? That's a whole different animal. Legally and technically though? Sure. It's fine ...as long as trial in criminal court is never the plan. That doesn't mean plea bargain. Why bother with deals for the Defense when evidence won't "technically" exist to use against their client? Such is the problem with KSM in Gitmo right now. He was actually in the process of pleading Guilty when he figured he could play the system out much better by changing to a tribunal as the political winds changed in Washington.

How this specifically relates is that "enhanced interrogation" and questioning sans Miranda may seem planets apart to someone who knows little about the US legal system or has taken their knowledge from television or movies ...but in the real Courts across this nation? Inadmissible is Inadmissible and it doesn't matter if that comes from a bad search., a coerced statement or a statement outside Miranda. It's still evidence not only unusable but knowledge that cannot even be referred to in passing in any legal form, whatsoever, ever again.

You're giving the man a full walk or leaving no choice but to hold him without trial as the most likely outcome when the rules of evidence and criminal justice are "exempted" on a whim. The trial judge just won't care what politicians say or think on the matter. Only what the law says ...and it's 110% against this and clear on that position.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Does there exist exceptions to Miranda or not? Yes or no?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I'll help you out:


The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.[8] Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."


Yes, there are exceptions to Miranda. In this specific case the "public safety exception" was invoked.

Miranda Warning.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


with our system of laws you are damned if you do and damned if you don't...



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   


must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety


Wouldn't that possibly be applicable to the shout out situation but not necessarily information from 3 days earlier.

Just wondering how far the 'public safety part' can be stretched.
edit on 4/30/2013 by roadgravel because: typo





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join