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

I was arrested waaay back in '05 on 3 felony charges and was never read my Miranda rights. When I told my lawyer about it I thought I was going to get the charges dropped or something, but instead I was told that the police no longer have to read you your Miranda rights and was told to drop it. All kinds of nonsense ensued during the case. I never said anything to the police about anything. Yet they managed to come up with a full page of crap that was apparently quoting me confessing and bragging about what I had done. It was even put in two different newspapers. Best part is the author who wrote the story about me for the newspaper was the chief of police! I thought journalists were supposed to be neutral to their story. Ahhh, America, gotta love it!

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


There are terrorist sympathisers of every faith, even atheist terrorist supporters. You are correct. Really, these types have never had this kind of thing happen to their family and they have no or little idea of the psychology behind religious extremism.

They dont even understand the very basics of their faith.

They are presuming to be tolerant but end up being " too soft"

My issue is that... yes he deserves a fair trial as the first brother did.

I understand they really wanted to " exterminate" these guys. They didnt want to risk the first brother getting away and killing more people, or the second brother doing the same. I understand the sentiment.

But ethically speaking, it was going too far. They only had to wait and talk to them, put on a trial so the public can understand and see what really happened and then put them on the electric chairs.

They were hasty....

There are a few situations that do not require mirandizing someone.

1) There is something known as a sudden utterance - which basically means that if you walk up to me and say "I just killed someone" I can use that statement against you without mirandizing you first. Now, after you say that, I have to stop you and inform you of those rights when I arrest you.

2) In situations like this, with serious risk of further harm, you don't want that suspect to remain silent. You have the legal right and obligation to protect innocent citizens from psychos like the noted individuals. When trying to determine if there are any other devices, for instance, he or she should be interrogated appropriately to make this determination. Once it is all clear, he should be mirandized and properly arrested.

Originally posted by Bundy
I was arrested waaay back in '05 on 3 felony charges and was never read my Miranda rights. When I told my lawyer about it I thought I was going to get the charges dropped or something, but instead I was told that the police no longer have to read you your Miranda rights and was told to drop it. All kinds of nonsense ensued during the case. I never said anything to the police about anything. Yet they managed to come up with a full page of crap that was apparently quoting me confessing and bragging about what I had done. It was even put in two different newspapers. Best part is the author who wrote the story about me for the newspaper was the chief of police! I thought journalists were supposed to be neutral to their story. Ahhh, America, gotta love it!

I'd like to state the obvious here, but if you committed the felonies, you had it coming. I can't stand people who break serious laws then try to escape the consequences by exploiting some loophole.

If you were not guilty, then shame on them. If you were, you have nothing to complain about. Most people go through their lives without being a felon. It's not hard.

Besides, you only have to mirandize someone when you arrest them. If you weren't under arrest, and were voluntarily interviewed, your attorney is correct.

reply to post by elouina


I wrote:

This must have been by far the dumbest thing I´ve read this year on ATS, and I posted on that "Believe it or not" thread minutes ago.

Just because you wrote something I consider dumb (it seems I´m not the only one thinking this), it doesn´t mean you are dumb. I may post nonsense, too at times but I don´t feel stupid when someone points this out to me. I may feel embarrassed because I wrote something idiotic. But I don´t feel like I´m an idiot at all.

Show me where I call you "stupid" and I will apologize honestly in an instant.
If you feel stupid after reading my post, I hope it´s because you realized you took a fast shot at this.
Before I make any opinions of mine, I ALWAYS look at both sides. Yet, you decided to go the mad cowboy route.
FYI, this is not to call you mad. The route you took is mad, not you, to make that clear. This is my opinion.
U2U my to save valuable ATS space if you still feel called stupid, I will point it out to you.

Have a nice day.

JBurns, if you were to ask me I would say I broke a law that has no place in a free country. I was arrested for growing marijuana, selling it (never did that part), and possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony. witch in my state meant I was charged with 3 felonies making me eligible for 5 to life, that large gap in time there is also crazy to me. I don't think any other crime has such a low and high end. Also, I lived in a small town where everyone pretty much knows the police chief and his whole clan sold meth. So I was being arrested and hauled off for growing pot by the towns most well known crystal meth salesman.

Another thing, while I had a hand in the growing of a few marijuana plants, I never sold any pot. They were personal use plants, guns were there just because.. Well, I live in Oklahoma everyone has guns. It was my first offense, so I went from average citizen to being blasted in the newspapers for being a "dope dealer". I had also just moved to this town, and moved away immediately thereafter because of this whole fiasco. I bailed out immediately, I was being followed by police everywhere I went, they tried to taunt me into fighting a police officer while I was cuffed, they sped through the countryside on my way to jail threatening to pull over and "take me on a walk through the woods". Now tell me, does that sound fair or just to you?

More than likely he willl be tried as terrorist and enemy combatant of the United States, therefore his trial will read more like a military tribunal. Like those at Quatanamo Bay, he will have no rights. Anyone checking out the uncensored pictures of the victims that day will agree.

The guy was talking then they went in and Mirandized him and gave him lawyers and he stopped talking. Imagine that!

I think the window of opportunity is 48 hours after suspect is aware.

The suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, first told investigators that the brothers were headed for New York to party after the marathon blasts, but he said under later questioning that they changed plans on the fly and intended a second attack there, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters that city officials were informed by the FBI of the turn in the investigation on Wednesday night. City officials were told that “the surviving attacker revealed that New York City was next on their list of targets. He and his brother had intended to drive to New York and detonate additional explosives in Times Square,” he said.

The brothers’ plan was interrupted only because they realized the SUV was low on gas, Kelly said.

usnews.nbcnews.com...

The ACLU says it is protecting American civil rights, but they almost always protect the rights of illegals, suspects of bombings, people who hate the USA, and other scurrilous characters, and especially groups of people who serve a Progressive purpose.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Sorry was away from the interwebs for a while

I think as long as the US has forces posted in the holiest region of Islam and props up a despotic monarchy responsible for human rights atrocities as bad as any of the other oil rich countries they've "brought democracy too" you are going to have problems....
- As long as you tell yourself "radical islamists" are evil and thats the sole reason for terrorism whilst ignoring the fact that noone ever thinks of themselves as the bad guy - they always have a motivation - you are going to have problems....
- Until the US realises that it must bare some of the blame for being targeted it will continue....

Not trying to be glib here myself - but you keep saying 40 years - as if terrorism has only been around 40 years, I'm guessing you count the over throwing of the US puppet Shah of Iran and the events that followed as the start of terrorism? (that's a perfect example of my above point actually ) the truth is it's been around a lot longer, Americans just didn't care - case in point, Boston was where the IRA got most of their explosives guns and funding - If it was culturally acceptable for Irish Bostonians to support a known terrorist group responsible for terrorist atrocities up until very very recently, why is it different for other nations?

The Wests support of Insurgents and dubious states is infact the cause of much of the terrorism we see today. If you don't believe me, maybe you should consider that Bin Laden was a fully funded ally of the US while he was blowing up Russians, he only became a problem when he turned his sights on the states.

None of that's not a dig on the US, it's just the clearest way of showing the strange duplicity that exists. One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

If you seriously think the way to deal with terrorism is to topple a bunch of resource rich countries, impose regime change, destroy all the infrastructure and hand all the rebuilding contracts to western companies before giving the reigns of power to a dictator or a bunch of disparate warlords all the while assassinating known threats via rockets and bombs with no concern for those caught in the blast zone - that's fine, I just don't personally think that is the way forward given all the evidence.

Iraq is all but in civil war as we speak, Libya is ruined and Afghanistan is unchanged - and we're still propping up the military dictatorship of Pakistan like we were doing all throughout the cold war - these are the places where terrorists come from, but of course it's simply because they're evil, not because they've witnessed actual horrors in their own country and have a legitimate grievance....

Terrorism is never the right answer, but in the face of some of the things that the West has always done in the region it's not all that surprising.

reply to post by MaxSteiner


Nice long reply, but here are the questions I asked you when I replied to your post.

I noticed you didn't answer any of them.

But do you really think that Radical Islamist are willing to compromise?

Do you also think that if the U.S simply quits all actions, and vacates all areas we have forces in. That the radical Islamist will quit all terrorism?

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Ah sorry, thought it was implied in there.

There is no one answer.
Just having dialogue or pulling out wont solve it, nor will carrying on as we have been.
There has to be an acceptance that they do have genuine grievances (terrorists always accept you have a grievance with them - getting you to that point is the whole point of terrorism) and some attempt to address them made. Then some progress will happen.
You don't destroy terrorist groups with Daisy cutters, you destroy them by removing their popular support (blowing them up just increases resentment and makes them martyrs).

It's really not as different to what went on (and is still going on) in Ireland as you make out, infact there's a lot of similarities.

There's always going to be a radical fringe that wants to destroy America, it's the price you pay for being number 1 so you just have to accept it - but if it's any consolation they'll shift their attention to China once they over take you