ACLU: Denying Miranda rights to marathon bombing suspect is 'un-American'

ACLU: Denying Miranda rights to marathon bombing suspect is 'un-American'

The American Civil Liberties Union warned Saturday that denying Miranda rights to Boston bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev is “un-American” and will make it more difficult to “obtain fair convictions.”

“Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights,” Anthony Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, said in a statement posted on the ACLU website.

On Friday night, an Obama administration official told NBC News that Tsarnaev would not be given a Miranda warning when he is physically able to be interrogated after receiving medical treatment.

For those of you who believe in a nation of just laws, rights inherent to everyone which are supposed to be protected by the Constitution, what say you?

Is the bombing suspect "entitled" to his well, rights?

You'll notice that the Constitution says "right of the people", not the right of the citizen. Because the founders knew that these rights were inherent to ALL people.

I would argue that a government which applies the law selectively is no government at all.

What I find most hypocritical about all this is the Republican or "conservative" position. They pretend to be unwavering when it comes to the oath public officials take to uphold the Constitution.

When adherence to that oath doesnt suit them, they are quick to abandon those same principles...

-Agree.
Rights should be non-negotiable.

Sadly I see most fairly happy with all of this-

The trend is changing.

If you havent noticed people dont have right anymore. Shoot to kill.

reply to post by gladtobehere


He is an American citizen and has the same rights as any other citizen natural born or not. They will try to keep this suspect out of a court room by any means I believe. They are already saying he can not talk. I have to admit this is really starting to stink of a false flag at this point.

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
-Agree.
Rights should be non-negotiable.

Sadly I see most fairly happy with all of this-

Just wait till their own vision of justice that includes denial of rights is turned against them...

I personally think he has rights too. Actually I'm bloody amazed hes still alive to be honest. The US isnt really known for capturing "live" ones... It was a surprise. At least this one wasnt found in a hole on the ground looking like santa with an expression of "who am I? what the f am I doing here? Who are you people?"...

Well not everyone gets to be buried at sea these days anymore... so much for "tradition".

Anyway I hope he gets the rights he deserves no matter how bloodlust the masses may be.

our gov not doing what they are supposed to do.. sounds pretty american to me.

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
our gov not doing what they are supposed to do.. sounds pretty american to me.

Actually its not American at all. The founding fathers made it very clear what path we should take. The progressive mindset has taken all of us farther and farther off the path.



If you want to hate something hate progressives because that is root cause of what you see today. It is the cold hard truth. How do I know this..........look into the past it will show you the truth.

reply to post by SubTruth


"The founding fathers"? Wow... putting it like that makes it sound like a religion...

Besides your founding fathers are actually terrorists at the eyes of the British and ironically the Boston Tea Party itself was a terrorist act. So your rights actually were written by terrorists after multiple incitements to terrorism culminating in an extremely well organized underground terrorist organization very well sponsored by foreign powers that shared common interests - its all a matter of perception.

Will the American liberties and rights that were once born in Boston, be back to Boston only to die? Interesting thought.

America is disposing of consititution & rights,
submitting to absolute "Martial Law".

Ok I will be the "bad man" or should I say woman here. But I think terrorists should be considered enemy combatants. A terrorist proclaims war on American soil and no longer considers themselves as "one of us". You act like a terrorist and you get treated like one. I say waterboard the arsehole.

reply to post by elouina


Then... is a civilian a "friendly"?

Next time you enter a restaurant, hide behind the counter and yell "FLASH" ... if the waitress doesnt answer "THUNDER" - shoot her.

Sounds kinda silly doesnt it...? You're not exactly at war... but just in case, regarding that "enemy combatant"... btw... theres this thing... called... the geneva convention ... it has some tips regarding pows... you know. You may or may not want to check it. It may actually be saving the terrorists faces more if he is an "enemy combatant" than if he is treated like a "terrorist" ... ironically what you suggest may actually get him a better treatment.

reply to post by elouina


We used to take pride in the fact that we treated people differently than the rest of the world, when it came to the protections we enjoyed. Now, we cheer in the streets to see these protections ignored for our own selfish fears and outrages. I wonder how loud everyone will cheer for the circumvention of these protections when they are in need themselves?

reply to post by solomons path


In need? I am not planning on blowing up innocent Americans last I checked. So there will be no need. And quite frankly we wasted enough of our tax dollars on this arsehole's deeds. If it was your mother that got blown up by one of them, you would want to see them tortured by having pinapples shoved up their arses. When they are all done bleeding info from him, electrocution sounds good to me.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by solomons path

 

In need? I am not planning on blowing up innocent Americans last I checked. So there will be no need.

And quite frankly we wasted enough of our tax dollars on this arsehole's deeds. If it was your mother that got blown up by one of them, you would want to see them tortured by having pinapples shoved up their arses. When they are all done bleeding info from him, electrocution sounds good to me.

I'm pretty sure the BoRs doesn't make an exception or only apply to bombings . . . maybe you should take a course.

As for the second part . . . you obviously have mistaken me for someone without principles. But, I'm glad to hear you don't have "need" for those either.

reply to post by gladtobehere

S+F

I read a little about this on Yahoo news earlier today and I find it appalling. One of the most important things a cop has to do when arresting someone is read them their rights. How does a trained professional, term used loosely, forget that?

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by solomons path

 

...quite frankly we wasted enough of our tax dollars on this arsehole's alleged deeds...

I think I will correct your statement here since as of now he is still only a suspect. He has yet to go to trial over his alleged crimes. You know the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? If you were a suspect for a crime I know you would be demanding your constitutionally protected rights, and he deserves his as well. Or I guess we can just go all lynch mob on him since the media already painted him as the bad guy. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

reply to post by gladtobehere


You failed to mention from your article why that decision had been made, it was not arbitrary:

New York v. Quarles/Public Safety Exception

If one does not agree with the ruling of the court, perhaps this current case will be the catalyst for the court to reverse their previous ruling; or Congress and the states can amend the constitution.

Considering that Thomas Jefferson shot a man for treason on the white house law - I'd say that terrorist is lucky, or maybe not considering what life he will have in federal prison for life as a traitor to his country.

Your right. This boy received his citizenship on Sept 11, 2012.

And then turned around and bombed a city, THEN, murdered a cop, led police on a wild chase shooting and throwing explosives - all in the name of extremest Muslim views.

Yes he was an American. An American traitor.

Cirque

Who defines what terrorism is? Where do you draw a line when, after a while, everyone gets used to torture and locking ppl away without a trial?

Did you know, that the FBI considers Eco-Activists Terrorists and that these guys can be treted like those already?

A guy who set some trucks on fire which belonged to a wood cutting company which was cutting down old trees, was arrested as terrorist, without having a lawyer or anything to help him. He just dissapeared.

So people protesting against pollution and corruption are potential terrorists, those who destroy anything, even if nobody is harmed are considered terrorists.

If you have two sets of rights for people, there are two kinds of people. Good and bad, defined by the government or people having a great influence on the goverment and legislation.

The USA should revoke the "Patriot Act" asap and go back to a democratic practice of law.

I'm not concerned about now, but what may happen to a strong opposition in the US in 10 years...

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to a attorney and to have one with you during questioning.

That is your rights under Miranda.

What many people fail to see, is Miranda applies only to self incrimination. It does not apply to ANY other evidence gathered by law enforcement. It is not a get out of jail free card if it is not used.

People have not been read their Miranda rights, and have still received all the protection due them under the Constitution. All that law enforcement will get from a suspect not marandized is information. That information will not be able to be used in a U.S court of law.

When law enforcement ignores the Miranda warning, they have plenty of other evidence that will and can be used to convict the suspect, they don't feel they have to rely on the suspect's statements.

So this move by law enforcement is a move to get any and all info out of the suspect. In order to get information to try, to keep the public safe. Only if they try to use his statements in court ( and are allowed) will any of his rights have been violated.

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
Considering that Thomas Jefferson shot a man for treason on the white house law - I'd say that terrorist is lucky, or maybe not considering what life he will have in federal prison for life as a traitor to his country.

Its a myth. This story originated in the movie Swordfish (2001), where it is mentioned by John Travolta's character, Gabriel Shear. Thomas Jefferson never personally killed anyone, nor were there any treason executions or convictions during his presidency.