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

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


And sure Glenn was trying to save his ass, but why did he have to? Because Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and some rich Saudis. By the way, did you know that Rupert Murdoch supports Common Core Standards along with Bill Gates who gave 5 billion of his own money to subvert States rights in educaton?


Amplify, the company owned by Rupert Murdoch, won a $12.5 million contract to develop formative assessments for Common Core tests. The award was made by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, one of two groups funded by the Obama administration to create national tests, administered online. Joel Klein runs Murdoch’s Amplify division.

When Murdoch purchased Wireless Generation in the fall of 2010, he said:

“When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching,” said News Corporation Chairman and CEO, Rupert Murdoch. “Wireless Generation is at the forefront of individualized, technology-based learning that is poised to revolutionize public education for a new generation of students.”



dianeravitch.net...

So ask me if I defend Fox News stabbing Glenn Beck in the back after exposing a bunch of commies in the WH? It was Fox News which was worried about losing sponsors. And they were saving their own azzes.

Not that any of this has to do with the Daily Mail.

So is Ed Schultz a newscaster or an entertainer and why did comedy entertainer Jon Stewart testify before Congress and all the Progressives took him seriously?

If you wanna talk hypocrisy and tabloids, look in the mirror.
edit on 1-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I have agreed with you on a number of things. Occupy was and still is full of communist sympathizers and leftists and people who poop on cop cars and rape women and OD on drugs and hate corporations because they represent Capitalism. Frances Fox herself put in an Occupy appearance and she is half responsible for the Cloward/Piven method of overwhelming govt by putting too many demands on such services as welfare and food stamps.
A very small fraction of Occupy people were Libertarian ron Paulites, and even a Tea Party member or two, but a small fraction. And did they oppose things like Common Core Standards which take away States rights in education and completely eliminate both parental and teacher/education board input on curriculum? Where was Occupy when Bill Gates gave 5 billion to this end? Not a peep out of them.
Who's talking about Common Core now? Glenn Beck and the Tea Party, but moreover, the Republican National Committee opposed Common Core on it's platform. Did you hear about that in the MSM? Bet not. Did you hear that Mitt Romney also opposed Common Core? Bet not.
And yet some guy comes with a pic of a Patriot and says the Tea Party doesn't know what it's doing because there are too many Christians in it.
That is spiritual blindness if I ever did see it.



In this one instance, I have to say, you're sounding a bit closer to what I hate so much on the left


That's fine. If it bothers you I should take a real stand, then so be it. If you think I'm not moderate enough that's fine with me. Why would I want to be moderate like John McCain or Olympia Snowe? That just means compromise.

Why did we suddenly see on Fox news after the election, people who appeared conservative or in the Republican Party suddenly decided we have to compromise to appeal to more people who vote Democrat? I did a double take.... did they really just tell me on Fox News that we must be more like Democrats to get votes?

That is an insane compromise and not worth it in my mind. I'd rather lose than be Democrat or RINO.

Is it my reference to Dr Gosnell that bothers you? Do you really think it's extreme to make a stand against people like him who murdered live babies with scissors? Just last night on Fox News I saw some chick named Tamara roll her eyes at the idea that it was evil to kill those babies, and she even said she didn't think those babies were real babies. Tamara says, "The two of them they were talking about 'it', they were NOT talking about a baby".

So the baby is an "it" to her just because a woman chose to end the life.

Is that the kind of leftist you think I am akin to?
Please explain your position.
Here's the YouTube video of the exchange


I'm proud to be pro life. That's the way it is.
So Gingrich thinks that a Chechen radicalized terrorist shouldn't be Mirandized but Tamara can call a baby an "it" and support putting "it" in a solution to stop it breathing.
Where are people's priorities?
edit on 1-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Also, Wrabbit, I agreed with your OP for the most part. I don't want to see our rights go down the toilet. But I supported your position that the govt does not give us rights and neither should they be arbitrarily taking them. Therefore, are we really giving the Chechen guy his rights when we give him a Miranda warning? This thing really made me think twice about what Miranda really is.

I know a family whose teenage son was dragged out of his house, cuffed on the ground and NOT read his Miranda rights after he told them his Mom said they need a warrant to search.

Where is the ACLU to defend that kid? They are busy defending Chechen terrorists rights. See what I mean?

By the way, the charges are dropped on the teen. They had nothing on him. He knew his rights anyway.
If the Chechen guy is guilty they will still bring charges and he will still be tried.
But Miranda sure shut him up.

Do I think people should be denied their rights? No I do not. Do I like that a Chechen terrorist became a citizen then blew people's legs off, then shut up after being Mirandized, no I do not. Do I think his rights were more violated than a baby who is still alive after a late term abortion and is then murdered???
But couldn't the whole thing have been subverted if the FBI had paid more attention to the Russian tip? Also, I would say this is exactly the kind of sticky situation that the Obama administration has used to erode American society. Not just Obama but the Globalists.

I cannot say if Newt is a true Globalist or not.
edit on 2-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Hmm... Working backward here... Where, how and why did abortion ever come into this? I didn't mention it ..altho I thought about it. I decided better because it's off into emotionally charged issues that lose the focus of the discussion into pure passion within the time it takes to type it. Debate or meaningful discussion is lost entirely the moment it becomes pure passion. For the record, Gosnell is no doctor. He's a murderer and monster with a medical license. Or..he used to have one and 1 day was too long to have kept it.

-------

In terms of compromise? There is compromise in a healthy and viable sense to make a larger system work, and that must come both directions. Then there is simply selling out principle to 'go along so we can get along'. I'm all for the former. I'll fight to my last breath before doing the latter. There is a world of difference.

To simply suggest compromise is evil is to get back to those 3 choices. Fight them forever, kill them to the last person, or pretend it isn't one of those two while everyone else knows it sure is. That's all that's left in the real world if compromise is a dirty thing all around ...and the left and right mindsets do split about a 50% middle down our nation ...which they do by population, if not by land area.

-------

On Occupy? I have a straight forward question and it's absolutely not rhetorical. What Occupy camp were you in, even for a day, to see it in person and know what was actually there yourself?

Not what others in the real world said they saw ..let alone what Fox News OR HuffPo claimed was there? (*I* was interviewed by HuffPo while in the STL camp and I assure you, you'll never find a word I said in anything they published. Must have 'lost it'.
)

I can say in STL, we had Communists of the true sense, we had Black Block and we had anarchists. We also had 2 ex-cops and 3 combat vets ..not counting the small group from Veterans For Peace (Who really ARE as peaceful as a Quaker in real life .. maddeningly so at times). We even had a couple where one had been a Missionary in North/Central Africa and her Fiance, part of the Greek protests shortly before that. (Those two both made for hours of VERY fascinating talk)

The man I was directly answerable to with the safety committee was a former Deputy Sheriff. The one heading that was a retired Army Officer with an interesting background in itself. Both as conservative as I am. Safety Committee in an Occupy camp wasn't a secondary token position, it was security. Internal and External. The politics of those running it ought to say a lot. It was balanced in camp by someone generally looked up to as a leader who I swear would have answered in kind if I'd addressed him as tovarich.

In other words, we had all kinds. Now, for a week prior and for about 4 weeks following my time in STL, I was home, watching multi-monitors to keep up with what was happening in camps around the nation so I could offer information back to them, if needed, for what they couldn't see, on the ground. You'd be surprised how limited the sense of awareness can be.

So... Again ..Which camp did you visit? I'd be shocked if it were one I hadn't watched on Livestream at least once, for some period of time during that?

-------

Now you can say you didn't need to be at or in a camp to know what it was all about ...and you know without that direct, first hand level of experience. Okay, if so, then I'd ask how others are wrong in their opinions about The Tea Party Movement when they almost certainly haven't been to a single meeting or are close to a single attending member of a local chapter? You're very forceful on that point .....how would it be different?

-------

Compromise, as people like Newt would probably die before giving a Good Faith effort to those opposite him, willing to do the same, isn't a nasty thing. It's survival ..for BOTH political sides of our nation. We find a way to stand United or....we will fall as individuals ...then what have those lofty stands won or gained? Anarchy ...but Anarchy our way? Err.... It's still a nation lost.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Here's something else I found....Eric Holder wanted to expand the public safety option....


Holder started talking about a bill to broadly expand the exception to Miranda a few months later. Nothing came of that idea, but in October of 2010, Holder’s Justice Department took it upon itself to widen the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling. “Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,” stated a DoJ memo to the FBI that wasn’t disclosed at the time.


www.slate.com... tml

And yet while the Obama admin and DOJ wanted to ask the guy questions before Mirandizing him....



Graham's tweets quickly created a firestorm of outrage among various Democrats, progressives, liberals and the like. They insisted that such actions would be radical and menacing, a serious threat to core Constitutional protections. I certainly shared those sentiments: the general concept that long-standing rights should be eroded in the name of Terrorism is indeed odious, and the specific attempt to abridge core constitutional liberties on US soil under that banner is self-evidently dangerous.



But while I shared the reaction of these Democrats to Graham's decrees, it nonetheless really baffled me, as I quickly noted. This was true for several reasons. First, the Obama administration has already rolled back Miranda rights for terrorism suspects captured on US soil. It did so two years ago with almost no controversy or even notice, including from many of those who so vocally condemned Graham's Miranda tweets yesterday. In May, 2010, the New York Times' Charlie Savage - under the headline "Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects" - reported that "the Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights." Instead of going to Congress, the Obama DOJ, in March 2011, simply adopted their own rules that vested themselves with this power, as reported back then by Salon's Justin Elliott ("Obama rolls back Miranda rights"), the Wall Street Journal ("Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects"), the New York Times ("Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered for Terror Suspects"), and myself ("Miranda is Obama's latest victim").


www.guardian.co.uk...

So while the Democrats and the liberal media are decrying Newt and Graham on this, it was the Eric Holder DOJ who expanded the rule right under everyone's noses.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

I think we'll just agree to disagree on this entirely. This isn't worth making enemies over ..and you're right back to partisan "they did, we didn't" or "They did worse".... I can't remain all that nice with that after the effort into the above posts to fight against precisely that mindset.


Agreed to disagree it is then. Fair enough.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





Where, how and why did abortion ever come into this? I didn't mention it ..altho I thought about it.

yah sorry, that was off-topic I admit. I used abortion rights because Patriot guy said he champions woman's right to choose. I cannot help wonder when murdering unborn offspring became a right, oh wait yah it was Roe V Wade.....so that's where my abortion rant came in, when same guy says Tea Party is full of goofball Christians. Yep it was my rant on his anti Tea Party rant.

I didn't mean for you to be in the middle of that. I really like your common sense approach to most issues. By the way, I have a friend who says Occupy is right about Wall Street. and he thinks pretty much like me. The Globalists are really neither right nor left as Antony Sutton says, but a synthesis of the conflict of opposites.

Anyway, this whole Mirandizing the terrorist thing has morphed after a terrorist who happens to be a citizen is caught, but nobody noticed when Eric Holder changed the rules to expand the PS exception. So in effect, regardless of whether or not the Boston incident is false flag or not, Holder already had the precedent in motion before it ever happened and then the liberal media holds Republicans to blame.
I already had this same argument on another thread a week ago. Except I didn't know about Eric Holder changing the rule.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Hmm. Okay, as a totally separate point from what we just.. can't agree on.


I'd say I was feeling about the same way about the PSE. Until I read Charles's find with the Columbia Law Review. You may want to check back a page or two ..I'd linked it but he quoted heavily.

I had thought ...thanks to media impressions (Yeah.. I'm coming to really *HATE* the media.. both sides of it) that the PSE was something Holder and Obama were playing footsie with as a new thing. Oh..certainly not it appears.

371 cases using it have occurred since the exception was established by New York vs. Quarles. Only 93 were rejected. Most were not terrorism related. They aren't playing anything new ...they're using what's been used time and again ...ABUSED time and again in my view..in a far more public way than is usually done. That's all. Oh, it's just as wrong and I hope it does get up to the Roberts Court so Obama can get his knuckles rapped again. However, they sure didn't think this one up. hundreds had happened before he ever thought to run for President.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

I think we'll just agree to disagree on this entirely. This isn't worth making enemies over ..and you're right back to partisan "they did, we didn't" or "They did worse".... I can't remain all that nice with that after the effort into the above posts to fight against precisely that mindset.


Agreed to disagree it is then. Fair enough.



Then why is everyone focusing on what Newt and Graham said, and not on what Eric Holder did? In the end, the DOJ did question him for 16 hours and then he got Mirandized and shut up. But somehow it ends up Republicans the evil bad guys here.
It's the usual thing, left/right Hegelian dialectic.
I'm really not disagreeing with you. My rant was on someone else.
I understand that the propensity for the radical left is to defend communism, socialism, radicalism, revolution, and terrorist sympathizers of every kind, as we saw in the Weatherman Underground. I am sorry if you view my position as "partisan".
Look what we have been seeing this administration do. They talk about closing Gitmo on one side of their mouth, as if they have such bleeding hearts for foreign operatives, then in the other side of their mouth, they are interrogating American citizens before Mirandizing them, after they changed the rules and the media is projecting it all as Republican.

That is just plain evil and hypocritical if you ask me, and I don't care if you think I'm engaging in partisan politics. I see what I see.

Best Regards, and now I am taking my leave of the thread.
I got flamed on another thread for having a "Christian view there, and 5 other people bashed Christians after that. I have left that thread as well.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


hmmm okay, thanks for bringing up the Quarles thing and your post a few pages back.
Yes, then I think we agree that something very fishy and bad is going on.

the best thing I can conclude is that Globalists on both sides are destroying the fabric of our Constitutional rights and using crisis management as pretext. After all, if there wasn't a crisis there would be no reason to overstep the bounds.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You don't know me at all.

I don't care what you think you "can see through", but the icky-colored coke-bottle commie-spotting glasses you're wearing are not tuned in to reality.

The nastiness that you exude is clear enough for me to know that I want nothing more to do with you or your sort.
But at least you are consistent in being hateful and judgmental - and stubbornly wrong. That attitude is why this country is stagnating on it's slow, smelly swirl down the toilet. It's also why I have no reason to attempt to discuss anything at all any further with you.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





But at least you are consistent in being hateful and judgmental





That attitude is why this country is stagnating on it's slow, smelly swirl down the toilet


And you are as hateful and mean as you say I am. Project much?

You don't know me at all either. I know what you post on, what you promote here on the boards. Yesterday you blasted me about Glenn Beck when I hadn't even mentioned him. You used Fox News, which obviously you hate because you see it is conservative, to blast me and Glenn Beck. Ironically, It was GLENN BECK who said over a week ago that the Chechen guy SHOULD be Mirandized.

What is so great about promoting the Nanny State taking care of people? You have promoted this concept over and over in your threads. You have promoted that Society has to take care of people in various ways. This is NOT Liberty and it is NOT the way our Founding Fathers envisioned.

What are you going to say about Murdoch promoting Common Core Standards? Do you accept Bill Gates funding our public schools with his money? Do you accept the public/private partnership control of our schools' education system overruling States rights and promoting a federal centralized control that looks like it is public but is decided by private NGOs and foundations? Do you accept Exxon corporation and GE promoting Common Core? And do you accept this because they are supporting nationalizing the education system? Do you support Common Core while it overtakes even the private schools and homeschooling, forcing them to accept the Standards if they ever hope to have their kids pass the tests? Do you accept teachers teaching to the test only? Do you accept teachers having NO input on curriculum? If so, don't preach to me about being uppity.

Maybe your Libertine ideals of no moral restraint put you as supportive of the "any thing goes sex" concept being promoted in the schools. Yes, that is what is being promoted to 4 year olds, including bestiality. Yes, THAT Is what is being promoted to 4 year olds, 10 year olds, and up. Yes, anything goes sex ed. I've seen the books being used. It's pornography in cartoon pictures. They even take the faces of boys and put them on girl bodies. It's very subtle actually, but shocking to the senses.

I exposed the Murdoch thing last night on this board and all you can do is gripe at me because you espouse the Nanny State. If you espouse Common Core, you espouse a fascist system that promotes the Nanny State and Progressive ideals.
The very first time I encountered you on these boards, you were promoting the Nanny State via forcing taxpayers to pay for the children of illegals, and I am guessing you support amnesty too. Did you support the taxpayer subsidies the Chechen bomber and his brother were getting?

I wonder......




It's also why I have no reason to attempt to discuss anything at all any further with you.


Your method of discussion is telling people they are smelly toilets. Good work in your debate technique. In fact you seem incapable of debating me at all without hurling the most rude and disgusting invectives.

Furthermore, I can prove to everyone here by your own posting history that you use guilt techniques to push your favorite welfare projects.

"oh what horrible greedy selfish Republicans want to cut social services to blah blah blah, oh the greedy republicans,,,,, you must be wealthy....you just don't want to give any money to feed the poor starving children....blah blah blah."

That's a classic approach and you are quite liberal with using it.

I can and I have given my wealth to others but it is MY choice NOT YOURS and your pet welfare projects.

edit on 2-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I can give you a breakdown of the Cloward/Piven strategy of overwhelming the system with demands on government services, if you don't understand what I am talking about. You can find the breakdown and history of it in Richard Poe's book, "The Shadow Party."



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Actually I was a part of the original tea party when it was started under Ron Paul. I supported him in 08 and 12, not because I believed in everything he said, but because he was the closest to my views. I attended many Liberty oriented movements.

After what I said, just because I bash the Tea Party, you consider me a supporter of the establishment republicans or as a liberal? Seems like the type of reasoning that comes from the mainstream brainwashing. And if you knew me personally you'd know how insane that is.

Problem most "conservatives" have with me is I'm not conservative enough and deal in a world of facts and rationale not emotions and half truths. When my friends were all excited about Obama in 08, I was a lone voice criticized constantly for telling them to not get their hopes up and that he would change nothing. And he hasn't. He's increased the unConstitutional actions by our government but because I believe things like he's putting tons of people on food stamps not because he's a Marxist who is trying to buy votes (like our votes matter anymore... Right) but because huge corporations and banks who run food stamp cards and SNAP benefits make huge profits off such things, I must not be a conservative! I don't buy the mainstream rights version of Obama being some crazed America hating Muslim communist, I think he's a corporatist and a puppet and knows just where the centers of power lie in this country and serves them well. There is an effort to destroy this country, but the threat comes from beyond the Left Right paradigm most people are still stuck in.

I consider myself a conservative because my views are traditionally libertarian conservative. And I find a giant schism between myself and the idiots leading the movement. Their true colors come out when you criticize our foreign policy or support Ron Paul who was more conservative than anyone who ran for president in 2012. Yet they bash him and anyone who goes against what they deem "acceptable". And again, as a conservative I don't hate liberals or a liberal ideology. I disagree with big government and their way of doing things, but I don't automatically lump them all into "evil progressives! Must destroy!" category. It's ridiculous and childish.

All you have to do is look at the Tea Party darlings and their actions. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann... These are all people who scare the hell out of me and as previously stated I see them as fascists and hypocrites. Wolves in sheeps clothing who have hypnotized the masses and hijacked the growing tide of people who are angry and upset at what they see around them in an attempt to steer them in he wrong direction.

We may be seeing 2 sides of the same thing.. I know there are average everyday people out there who care and actually know what they're talking about who fit in with the Tea Party, but personally I as a conservative find them to be disingenuous and not real conservatives for the most part. People who claim to love the Constitution but couldn't tell me what each amendment in the Bill of Rights says. Happens all too often

All you have to do is look at where their funding comes from. The Koch brothers who also claim to be libertarians and fund their cause yet profit off of corporate socialism and socialist governments and get taxpayer money to boost their profits. They're frauds.

As a true conservative and follower of Christ I have a duty to expose hypocrisy and corruption wherever I see it, and that includes those who say they are conservatives or Christians but their ACTIONS say otherwise.

As far as liberals go, I do criticize them, constantly. I just at the same time know many Democrats personally and know they aren't actively and deceptively trying to destroy the constitution. Not like Harry Reid and Pelosi. I just cannot ignore the fact many on the right have done just as much if not more damage to our founding documents. They themselves love big government when it suits them. As I said, I hate the demonization of a whole group of people. I have no problem with people criticizing what they are doing. I do it? But the things I see on TV and hear on "conservative" talk radio amount to hate speech in my eyes. Won't be long before "liberals" are being beaten to death and Mark Savage or Limbaugh won't take responsibility, I guarantee you. All they can do is deflect it.

We'd be a lot better off if both sides actually took responsibility and stopped blaming everything on the other side.

And as far as amnesty, one thing I hate is the simplification of world events and politics which are almost always confusing and not black or white. Yes, the illegals broke the law. But what would you suggest? Let me guess, we go around rounding them all up, arresting them, shipping back to Mexico and dropping them off in the middle of the desert? They're here for a reason, and a big reason is because of US policy and so called free trade arrangements like NAFTA that destroyed Mexican farming and their way of life. Our government is at least partly to blame for their plight, and I think we should give them a chance. They would work (if there were actually jobs which there aren't because both parties have facilitated the outsourcing of many industries) and spend a lot of money that would help our economy.

You don't talk to me about patriotism. I have a feeling you don't know what it means unless there is a democrat in office. Let me guess and assume about you since you did it to me. You probably hate Muslims and believe it's a religion of hate, believe torture works, and ObamaCare is bad because it's "Marxism" and it will give everyone healthcare which is socialism and evil, even though most estimates show it will leave about +30 million uninsured and the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I have no problem with healthcare for all, I think it's essential and would do incalculable good for this country if we were all physically healthy. But most "Tea Partiers" and those on the right hate it because of this and decry it as socialism, totally ignoring the actual problems and unconstitutionalality of it.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Do you know what these words mean? Do we all have a right to them? We're they God given or just insured by the US government? (Meaning, as soon as you aren't an American citizen you don't have those rights)

I agree with Rabbit, it will take a middle ground for this country to survive and prosper. Problem is we've become so divided, the mainstream Dems want it all their way and same with those on the mainstream right. They're statists and fascists in my eyes.

Good day to you and be careful who you trust. Good luck
edit on 2-5-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-5-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-5-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I can give you a breakdown of the Cloward/Piven strategy of overwhelming the system with demands on government services, if you don't understand what I am talking about. You can find the breakdown and history of it in Richard Poe's book, "The Shadow Party."


Or an even better book, "Liberty and Tyranny", Mark Levin.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by PatriotGames2
 


Huh?

I have much better examples of Tea Party conservatives than the one's you mentions.

Ted Cruz, Mile Lee, Scott Walker et cetera.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by PatriotGames2
 



All you have to do is look at the Tea Party darlings and their actions. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann... These are all people who scare the hell out of me and as previously stated I see them as fascists and hypocrites. Wolves in sheeps clothing who have hypnotized the masses and hijacked the growing tide of people who are angry and upset at what they see around them in an attempt to steer them in he wrong direction.


This ^. Very well said.

That was an excellent and insightful, helpful post, PatriotGames, and I applaud you for taking the time to write it.
Star from me, for what it's worth. I appreciate your perspective and knowledge.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Wait just a minute while I surround myself with asbestos. Ok, I'm ready. Gingrich has a pretty good case, I may be convinced.


There are two exceptions to the Miranda requirements, which are recognized by the Supreme Court. One, if the bad guy just starts talking freely on his own, without questioning or coercion. As an example, after a long foot chase, the bad guy gets caught and says "Man, if I knew I was going to have to run so far, I'd never have snatched that purse." He's out of luck, that can be used even without Miranda warnings.

The second exception is the public safety exception. And here, from the vast legal expertise of Wiki, comes the following:

There is also a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before questioning: for example, if the defendant is in possession of information regarding the location of an unattended gun or there are other similar exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)). In 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Richard Allen Davis, finding that the public safety exception applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl later found to be murdered.
en.wikipedia.org...
I think you could easily argue that the fact there were other members of the cell loose, and that their next target seemed to be New York City, makes the public safety exception certainly plausible here.

Besides all that, the government might have decided that if they didn't give him Miranda, they could still make the case on the other evidence, and they still had a chance to get terrorist information from him.

The judge who decided to step in, wrongfully took that choice from them.

So, way to go, Newt! But I'm glad you're not our President.


I hate to agree but technically it was a public safety situation. At the time it seemed there was one suspect against the full force of the FBI, DHS and the Boston Police so I was glad the judge intervened. In fact, I suspected he may have known something about the case unknown to the public.
edit on 4-5-2013 by DiscreteParticle because: I really hate to say it but you have a point legally because it was ostensibly a public safety situation. At the time though it did seem that it was one suspect against the full force of the FBI, DHS and the Boston Police so I was glad the judge intervened.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Yes Gingrich it's a terrible mistake to have LAW in this nation and not just rule by decree. My God, and thank God you didn't get elected you tyrant scum.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thecakeislie
Yes Gingrich it's a terrible mistake to have LAW in this nation and not just rule by decree. My God, and thank God you didn't get elected you tyrant scum.


What are you talking about? The public safety exception to Miranda IS law.





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join