|
Post by bagdadjoe on Apr 22, 2013 9:33:46 GMT -5
exactly... and Obama trying to justify this mistake up by claiming "public safety concerns"...that's what bothers me. Obama doesn't like the Constitution...it's a bothersome little paper, ya know.
|
|
|
Post by savit260 on Apr 22, 2013 12:05:27 GMT -5
I don't think not Mirandising him was a mistake. Regardless of citizenship, this was a jihadist commiting an act of war. He needs to be treated as an enemy combatant, not a criminal. He needs to be interrogated to figure out who he was working with , and who was funding this operation. If Mirandised... he laywers up, and clams up leaving the rest of us in danger from others assosiated with this act. This SHOULD NOT be handled as a criminal case IMO. NOT being able to interrogate him leaves the general public at great risk. They did the right thing.
|
|
dmize
.401 Bobcat
Posts: 2,825
|
Post by dmize on Apr 22, 2013 12:44:50 GMT -5
I don't think not Mirandising him was a mistake. Regardless of citizenship, this was a jihadist commiting an act of war. He needs to be treated as an enemy combatant, not a criminal. He needs to be interrogated to figure out who he was working with , and who was funding this operation. If Mirandised... he laywers up, and clams up leaving the rest of us in danger from others assosiated with this act. This SHOULD NOT be handled as a criminal case IMO. NOT being able to interrogate him leaves the general public at great risk. They did the right thing. A point of view that I hadnt considered. Very good point.
|
|
gsp7
.30 Stingray
Posts: 421
|
Post by gsp7 on Apr 22, 2013 12:50:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nolongcolt on Apr 22, 2013 14:28:08 GMT -5
I don't think not Mirandising him was a mistake. Regardless of citizenship, this was a jihadist commiting an act of war. He needs to be treated as an enemy combatant, not a criminal. He needs to be interrogated to figure out who he was working with , and who was funding this operation. If Mirandised... he laywers up, and clams up leaving the rest of us in danger from others assosiated with this act. This SHOULD NOT be handled as a criminal case IMO. NOT being able to interrogate him leaves the general public at great risk. They did the right thing. The only problem with this logic, its that when you start deciding on the basis of gathering information etc from a citizen suspect and suspend his Constituional rights, where does that leave everyone else down the road? I am all for getting info from these guys but within the bounds of the Constitution. Judge Napolitano on FOX says its wrong to do this and it will likely come back and bite them in the rear eventually because of the snowball effect, my words not his but the point is the same. This guy will be tried in our court system, not the military. Imagine the first thing to come out of the defense attorneys mouth. "Your Honor, my client was denied his Constitutional rights by not Mirandizing him". Case dimissed?? Napolitano also opined that the basis for doing this was totally unfounded due to the original intent of the law allowing this to happen, written in 1984. He said the criteria is not met in this case to do this. Anytime the rights of a citizen are denied it hurts us all in the long run. I hate this guy and all he stands for and I hate what he did but being a citizen he does have the same rights as the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Mountaineer on Apr 22, 2013 15:17:29 GMT -5
I don't see a risk to successful prosecution simply because the subject was not advised of his 5th Amendment protections (Miranda) either at the moment of apprehension or since.
Much of what is believed about the Miranda warning is incorrectly based on how it has been portrayed in movies and television over the past 40 years or so.
The Miranda warning is not an immediate requirement when a person is arrested. It simply means a defendant must know they can have a lawyer present before questioning and that statements they make can be used as evidence against them. Among other factors, subjects (defendants) must be physically and mentally able to understand the warning and waive or invoke their rights. In the case of the Tsarnaev subject, since his arrest, he has seemingly been physically incapacitated or medically sedated, arguably rendering him incapable of fully understanding what was being asked or required of him. So reading him his rights up to his point would probably have been moot.
The mere act of failing to read a Miranda warning to a detained subject is not in and of itself a violation of Constitutional rights guaranteed under the 5th Amendment. Now, if they interrogate him without the advisory, and get something useful, then the government's use of that against him would be a violation of his rights. Any evidence so obtained wouldn't be admissible. But all the other physical and forensic evidence against him would still be admissible including statements he made to other people not in law enforcement (such as the guy they carjacked and to whom they bragged about being the bombers and killing the MIT officer). Make sense?
I think what the government is going to do is to try to get whatever intelligence they can from him, even in an incapacitated state, with the thought of finding out who else is or was involved and what else might be out there, knowing that none of what he says will be used against him. If there's already not enough evidence to convict him of what he did, then there's not enough evidence to convict anyone of anything.
Having said that, my personal opinion is that they ought to treat this subject, as an American citizen, just as they would treat you or me. The answers lie in the Constitution. We should not try to craft a special category for this terrorist. Though sometimes it seems to cut both ways, if we don't follow the Constitution and defend it, we'll all soon have nowhere to stand.
|
|
|
Post by jayhawker on Apr 22, 2013 15:28:43 GMT -5
Is he a US citizen?? Imagrated from Russia, did he obtain citizenship?
|
|
|
Post by Mountaineer on Apr 22, 2013 15:33:45 GMT -5
It has been reported the subject in custody became a US Citizen last year (on September 11, ironically). The older brother was not granted citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by tek4260 on Apr 22, 2013 15:34:42 GMT -5
At what point is it ok to overlook the Constitution? It was done in MA to find a teen. How far will it have to go before folks stand up and stop this abuse? He would have been found reguardless of how they searched. Will the excuse fly with you when they are doing the same thing while looking for your guns? Read the first few pages here and tell me if it sounds like something that "couldn't happen" www.wedealinlead.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=303
|
|
|
Post by Mountaineer on Apr 22, 2013 17:02:37 GMT -5
At what point is it ok to overlook the Constitution? In a word: never. Those of us who come together in this meeting place to celebrate our love of the 2nd Amendment, must also support and defend the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th through amendment 27 and the entire body of the Constitution as well. I am not willing to believe, quite yet, that Massachusetts police and Federal Agents conducted warrantless search and seizure expeditions, notwithstanding various YouTube videos appearing to make it look like that. If indeed that happened, I condemn it, and I hope the ACLU jumps stiff-legged over it.
|
|
|
Post by Frank V on Apr 22, 2013 17:39:57 GMT -5
And of course we all believe this administration will never abuse authority for any citizen right?
|
|
|
Post by nolongcolt on Apr 22, 2013 21:54:46 GMT -5
He has been Mirandized now.
|
|