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

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

He's got himself some pretty high power defense attorneys now though and Capital case ones at that (usually among the best in criminal work when they're from the private side vs. public defender).

Good.

I think your OP still holds, though, Wrabbit. If they can do this it DOES tarnish our country's judicial system. And ultimately the magistrates and judges are the ones that determine what can be "allowed" or not. That's their JOB.

I had the feeling on the day this horrible thing occurred that it might be "pay-backs" for all the killing of civilians in the ME wars. How many of THEM had their legs blown off?

What do we expect is going to happen to the young people when they are surrounded by that sort of horror?
War is SICKENING, and so is Newt Gingrich. Slimy. Like a newt.

In reference to 48 hours time frame mentioned earlier...

Is that the point that a person can be held for 48 hours before being formally charged?

That still doesn't mean a person should not be given their Miranda warning at the point that they are taken into custody. No free pass on questioning.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Here's what kills me...

They are just "reading" the rights. They are not giving him new rights ....

They are advising him of his rights. The ones he ALREADY HAS.

And they act like if they don't read them then you don't actually have them but the police decide whether or not you have the right to remain silent or to an attorney.

I understand that this legal stuff gets confusing and the isues are not normally discussed in books or TV. It's tough to grasp, but I think it's kind of important.

1) No one has the right to hear Miranda before being questioned, no one has the right to be silent, or have an attorney, or any of the other stuff involved in the warning.

2) Miranda held that if prosecutors want to use that evidence in your prosecution, then they have to follow Miranda unless an exception applies.

3) One of the exceptions is the "Public Safety Exception." The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution allows prosecutors to use non-Miranda in their prosecutions if the safety of the public or officers is threatened.

4) This "Public Safety Exception" has been used hundreds of times, some, even before 9/11. Courts have no trouble admitting statements or evidence obtained without Miranda warnings under this exception.

5) Wrabbit2000, in his discussion on the situation has pointed out three questions (All Hail! The Mighty Wrabbit!)

5a) Does the PSE apply in this case? It seems to be a close call either way. Looking at the history of Courts' rulings, it seems that some would allow it and some wouldn't. It would have been a wait until it gets to court and finishes the appeals situation, escept for .....

5b) What was that goofy Magistrate doing deciding the question before it had been argued in Court? I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe, like Justice Sotomayor, she was appointed based on her "empathy." And there's a lot to be empathetic about, especially since.......

5c) "What are the limits of the PSE?" has never been completely answered. Obvious abuse hasn't occurred yet, but we need to make sure it doesn't.

So, the Bomber didn't lose any rights, this is not a 9/11 phenomenon, Newt could very easily be right in his analysis (odds are he is, but it's not a slam dunk), and we've got a buttinski magistrate.

And yet we have Eric Holder the atty General declaring illegal aliens who broke the law sneaking in and taking advantage of the welfare state to be eligible for amnesty and citizenship.

People need to realize that both left and right factions are turning the world upside down with Orwellian logic.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Gingrich is a joke. Another politician that has been in Washington too long. Its a sad world that we live in people. We need to run these fools out of Washington and move our capital somewhere else where money has no influence. Stop voting for these fools and stop believing their "hope" that they constantly feed you. Stop voting and stop participating in Government. Its the only way that we can beat them. Voting just gives them legitimacy to keep on operating but we have been brainwashed to believe that this is our only sense of control. The government is a machine and what if the machine rusts? You dont put wd40 on it. You dont try to repair parts of it. You just simple throw it away and get another machine. Everyone in this country should consider becoming voluntaryist. Thanks!

Considering the guy admitted hating the US over the ME wars and Afghanistan and Iraq, it can be easily seen that having US Citizenship is a method whereby one gains rewards of citizenship while still retaining a loyalty to another country or ideas not compatible with the US Constitution or the Founding Fathers. Even just having gotten his citizenship, he still didn't know what his rights as a citizen were. I can a time when terrorists will use this as a weapon.

The brothers were getting federal taxpayer money for subsidized housing etc, and it looks like the older bro married a US citizen to get bennies too.

Bomber's aunt says: 'He has a wife in Boston and from a Christian family, so you can't tie it to religion...he found his love, he married, he had a daughter, and he was very happy about his daughter.'

‘She went away to college about three or four years ago and I saw her a year later and she was dressed in the Islamic style. Her hair was covered and she was wearing very baggy, flowy clothing.’

www.dailymail.co.uk...

There is a question as to whether or not she knew that bomb-making was going on in their apartment.

Originally posted by Berzerked
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?

Yes, some threads were made on the subject.

Best regards

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

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".

Very well put. John Dewey, the father of our modern educational system, believed that our rights exist for the State exclusively and not for individuals. Or rather, the individual exists for the State. This is the collective thinking which pervades our modern educational system, and our children are being taught to be cogs in the collective wheel. The Elites know that the collective thinking or collective rights are at the base of challenges to our Constitutional Bill of Rights and they seek through false flags and activist legislation and popular protest to gut our rights as much as possible.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The DailyMail is a tabloid along the lines of the National Enquirer and Star magazines.

"Glenn Beck, who repeatedly and angrily tells his alleged persecutors to "leave the families alone," spent a good chunk of his radio program this morning mocking and attacking the intelligence of President Obama's 11-year-old daughter, Malia. Obama remarked yesterday during his press conference that Malia asked him of the Gulf oil spill: "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?" Beck, taking off on this, mockingly affected Malia's voice, asking "Daddy" why he "hates black people so much." Then Beck attacked Malia's intelligence, saying: "That's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to Daddy and saying, 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " This routine continued for several minutes, as Beck and his co-hosts touched on a variety of topics and laughed the entire time, all of it at the expense of an 11-year-old girl. "

THIS is okay with you? Really?
Fox News Fires Back At Glenn Beck Saying He Left TV To Save His Soul: ‘He Was Trying To Save His Ass’

Really?

Yesterday:
Real reason Glenn Beck departed Fox

A Fox News spokesperson explained Monday that conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck left the network not because he was safeguarding his spirituality, but because “he was trying to save his ass” after a massively effective advertiser boycott.

The comment comes by way of Politico’s Mike Allen, who emailed Fox News for a reaction to Beck’s remarks on Friday, when he told a group of students that he left Fox News to save his immortal soul.

“Glenn Beck wasn’t trying to save his soul, he was trying to save his ass,” a Fox News spokesperson told Allen in an email. “Advertisers fled his show and even Glenn knows what that means in our industry. Yet, we still tried to give him a soft landing. Guess no good deed goes unpunished.”

Glenn Beck is a CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! He is NOT a news anchor!!
Gha.
Just, gha.

reply to post by charles1952

no one has the right to be silent

Not sure what you mean by that but a person does not have to talk to the police and incriminate them self. Isn't that what the 5th is about. Are you saying they are not granting a person the right, a person already has it.

What am I missing?

Here's what kills me...

They are just "reading" the rights. They are not giving him new rights ....

They are advising him of his rights. The ones he ALREADY HAS.

And they act like if they don't read them then you don't actually have them but the police decide whether or not you have the right to remain silent or to an attorney.

Would a sleeper agent in the U.S. who becomes a citizen, and then many years later, carries out a terrorist act, have U.S. rights? Why should he? He only has them because he needed them to perpetuate a crime against the U.S. - ergo, he should not have them. If someone is getting their instructions and carrying them out from another country, he can have THEIR rights all he likes. He should not have nor deserves U.S. rights.

Now, I think these dudes were just deluded and misguided, and not under the influence of another countries agenda - so I am fine with him being read his Miranda rights. But make no mistake - it doesn't matter. Just because someone doesn't read your rights to you means you have to say a single word. Not having those rights read to you doesn't make you magically inclined to tell them everything you know.

reply to post by wildtimes


No, it isn't, you just hate it because it is not Progressive like you. I can see right through your Alinksy façade and I did the first time I encountered you.

Meantime, you hate Glenn Beck similarly because he exposed communists Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones and you want me to believe you believe Fox news story about why he left? Glenn Beck did say the Chechen guy should be read his Miranda rights because he is citizen, but naturally you overlook Glenn's Libertarian view because he is not LEFT enough for you. Because you are more Progressive than you are "Libertine", and you are also a huge proponent of Nanny Statism and enabling illegals in this country.

reply to post by roadgravel

Dear roadgravel,

Good question. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but let's go back to the Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Court ruled in Miranda that this means testimony coming from a compelled statement can't be used at trial. The right to silence warning comes from that same case. The Court's idea was that if you "read him his rights," and he talks, then the statement wasn't compelled and it can be used at trial. The suspect doesn't have a right to be silent, it's just that the statement can't be used if Miranda isn't read to him.

HOWEVER, the Public Safety Exception, discussed above, means that in certain circumstances Miranda warnings aren't required.

So, the bad guy doesn't have the right to silence, it's just that the police can't use the statement in court (unless there's an exception that applies).

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I can't agree with all of that logic or statements but that is just me. A person's first statement can be 'lawyer' and not give any info. Not saying never talking at all to the authorities is always the best path.

Maybe I am missing what you mean by silence.

edit:

I do understand the PSE and Miranda and evidence.

reply to post by roadgravel

Dear roadgravel,

Sorry I'm not doing a very good job. Let me try it from a different angle.

The right that an accused has under the Constitution is to be protected from having a forced statement used against him in a criminal trial. That's pretty much it as far as the Fifth Amendment goes.

By "silence" I meant a statement to police that is connected to any of his criminal activities. I don't mean total, shut mouth silence. He could say "I want some water," or "How about those Cubs," "or "I want a lawyer." That's not what I mean by "silence," it doesn't have anything to do with any criminal activity he might have been involved with.

Not saying never talking at all to the authorities is always the best path.

In my opinion, if you are arrested for a crime, not talking to the authorities is the best path.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks, that makes you point much clearer. I suspect times are a changing and it won't be good for the citizen.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Rabbit, always appreciate your poignant take on things and couldn't agree with you here any more.

I'm in the same boat, as a conservative I am down right frightened to be associated with the people who lead the charge in the Republican Party/Tea Party and the media/radio personalities that espouse their views.

The problem is they are all hypocrites and/or fascists, in my eyes. They talk about freedom and liberty and the Constitution but I try and shut myself off to the talk and watch their actions. They, despite facts and reality, continue to expand our defense budget while putting down those who are anti-war and aware of the disastrous effects of our foreign policy, demonize Muslims and low income citizens on welfare (many whom work more than one job even) while ignoring corporate welfare, even destroy true Christian values in the name of Christ, and regularly chip away at the Constitution in the name of "safety" - 9/11 changed everything being their mantra in the post-9/11 Bush era.

I am a conservative libertarian but am definitely more liberal on social aspects of our society. I also believe in capitalism and free markets but do not think that is what we have in America. I also believe socialism can work alongside capitalism and do not believe they are the antithesis of each other necessarily, helping boost the common welfare of our country as a whole by ensuring we all have healthcare, parks for our children to play in, etc.
would do wonders to changing the downward spiral of American culture we have seen for far too long.

I find the dominionism offered by evangelical Christiandom that many on the right subscribe to as incredibly dangerous and their views mostly in opposition of what Christ preached.

I believe personally abortion is a bad thing and we should be spending money on taking care of children after birth and ensuring their safety and health if they are not wanted, but as a libertarian I believe it is a woman's choice (as long as it's early on in a pregnancy, I certainly would never agree with the murder of a fetus, but a collection of still developing cells I believe is different)

I totally disagree with how they handle illegal immigration and the border issue. Our borders should be secure but closing them is absolutely asinine and I also think amnesty is a good idea. I just moved to Texas and although many of the Hispanic people here that I know are Americans, their culture and the people are very hard workers and decent, polite people for the most part (excluding drug cartels, of course). I think it would positively affect our economy.

And as previously stated, I despise the demonization of Muslims and those of differing faiths. I am intimately familiar with radicalized Islam and I am not ignorant to the fact their are dangerous people out there who hate America and happen to be Muslim, but I think the threat is dramatically over hyped and usually factually completely inaccurate and riddled with inconsistencies and bias.

I also hate the demonization of liberals and those on the left. Don't get me wrong, the majority of our elected Democrats are just as guilty of many of the things I've mentioned. But that deserves a whole other thread of its own. I think it's a tactic to shift blame and I resent the fact, even as a conservative!, that liberals themselves cannot be true patriots and upholders of liberty. Difference in opinion is good in my eyes, essential even, and debate in this country has been reduced to childish name calling and mudslinging instead of factual discourse which would benefit us all and is most likely a danger to the establishment, hence the concerted effort to destroy it.

Newt is a great example of these scum. As a true conservative I believe in limited, efficient government and an adherence to the Constitution that protects people from all different walks of life. I wish American exceptionalism was real again and we were once again the shining beacon and leader of all that was true and just.

Ill fight til my dying day to see that happen. But people like Newt and his ilk have to go and must be discredited as true conservatives.

reply to post by PatriotGames2


Please don't talk that way about the Tea Party. As a conservative, if you diss the Tea Party, from my perspective it means you condone the Establishment Repubs who won't take a real conservative stand. Either that or you never attended a Tea Party rally where real Patriots stand up against the tyranny of the Progressives who are now running the country. Maybe you heard too much of the MSM coverage of Tea Party, or you believed Janet Napolitano and Nancy Pelosi when they compared Tea Party to the old radicals of the 60's.
Just my take: as a Tea Party member.
I'll know what you stand for if you won't stand up against such things as Common Core Standards.

but am definitely more liberal on social aspects of our society

Now I know why you diss the Tea Party. Everyone should be able to do their own thing as long as you agree with it.

Common Core Standards. Let me know if you are for or against.


Tell me why you hate the demonization of leftist radicals who are committing treasonous acts against our Constitution, giving away our national sovereignty to the UN and it's globalist agenda, former Weatherman Underground Marxists, radical environmentalists who want to depopulate the world down to 500 million, Bill Gates putting 5 billion in Common Core which takes away States rights and forces States to cater to a centralized Federal Progressive agenda?

reduced to childish name calling and mudslinging instead of factual discourse

Which is exactly what you just did to the Tea Party even though they were the ones visibly opposing the Marxists in the White House.

And why?

You want amnesty for 10 million people who broke the law and probably have been getting access to section 8 housing, food stamps, and free healthcare? Don't even talk about Patriotism. You think Eric Holder US atty General is right in not upholding the law for those people who broke it?
You think society should cave in to "woman's rights' in murdering helpless babies? Were you in abject horror when we heard Dr. Gosnell and his cohorts killed babies with scissors, cutting their spinal cords? Or did you think meh it's the woman's right..

And as previously stated, I despise the demonization of Muslims and those of differing faiths

Is this all Christians, or just not the ones who married Chechen terrorists in college and then turned to radical Islam and started wearing hijab and dark glasses and had no clue when her hubby was making bombs in her apartment?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm afraid we can't agree on everything and we sure don't agree here. I thought Patriot2 had a rather strong case made there. Oh, I disagree on one point and that is where Amnesty comes into it. The reasons may or may not be relevant to how he see's it, but really, that's side tracking pretty hard into another topic to single out as an issue, so I personally won't here.

In general terms though? As much as the Media generally blew any fair coverage of either Occupy or The Tea Party Movement ...they got more right than either one would comfortably admit, too. It depends ENTIRELY on which Tea Party group or which Occupy camp they were standing around to film and interview.

Heck, the Occupy camp I was in had friendly relations with the St Louis Police Department and a semi-formal liaison assigned for us to call or work with as the need arose (atop the two who were playing protester in camp of course ). Look at Oakland? It was a Combat camp and made no bones about that. Tea Party groups were likewise not under some central control to be homogenized like milk and all flowing the same color and consistency. Some were decent, some were very very GOOD...and some made John Birch look downright mainstream.

In this one instance, I have to say, you're sounding a bit closer to what I hate so much on the left at times. The strict ideological adherence to a "side" at almost any cost and with logic coming second to loyalty of affiliation.

I'm also as hard conservative as they come on some issues like law and order and National Defense. (Defense..not Offense...and our leaders no longer know the difference I think). At the same time, I don't personally see the problem with some level of social programs. The total LACK of anything whatsoever as seen in the Great Depression was almost barbaric. Make life work ...or die hungry in an alley. That was that path's end result before FDR. ...then FDR went a bit too far ...and those who followed, took that around the block and for a long slow dance all night long.

....for our nation to work, I do think there needs to be a balance and middle found between the near 50% Right and near 50% Left. Anything else either accepts fighting forever, the extermination of one side or the other entirely, or placing one's head in the sands of reality to leave their tail sticking up to be kicked at will.

Just my humble thoughts ..... Oh.. and Newt is SO SO SO far right, the man probably experiences physical discomfort using a left turn signal in his personal vehicle.