Does the surviving bomber get Mirandized?

[Connery]

When the "public safety exception" is overripe he will be Mirandized as a matter of course.

 

[Sallow]

Does the surviving bomber get Mirandized? Whats should be his status in your humble opinions, how should we handle this?

Yes, once it's been established that the "ticking time bomb" threat has passed and he also gets a trial in civilian court. Complete with a court appointed lawyer if he can't afford one.

 

[Sallow]

Does the surviving bomber get Mirandized? Whats should be his status in your humble opinions, how should we handle this?

He should be treated like any other American citizen. His rights should not be abridged. If they are, it is a threat to the rights of every other American citizen.

The Constitution isn't selective about rights. All people in US custody are entitled to them.

The last administration screwed the pooch on that one.

 

[Rocko]

If he's part of Al Queda No !

 

[Connery]

If he's part of Al Queda No !

Yes...Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American-born Muslim cleric who was killed by U.S. forces in a targeted drone strike. He was overseas and refused to come back to the US and be charged and tried for various crimes. He had constitutional rights, he was also on a list of U.S. citizens who can be assassinated by U.S. forces and intelligence services for ties to terrorism.

His father and the ACLU et al brought suit which was dismissed as Al-Awlaki did not appear for his own trial and the father had no standing to bring suit.

 

[Katzndogz]

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev couldn't even make a year of being a citizen. Maybe we should stop giving out citizenship as if it came out of a crackerjack box?

 

[Rozman]

I hope as soon as he gets out of surgery and is off pain meds he gets punched in the nads....
Then we start to get into some serious interrogation.

 

[Katzndogz]

Dzokhar is under heavy guard day and night. The reason why is, he's in the same hospital as his victims.

 

[Wolfmoon]

Does the surviving bomber get Mirandized? Whats should be his status in your humble opinions, how should we handle this?

His status should be that of “Enemy Combatant” and Terrorist. That way he loses all his Constitutional rights and they can question him indefinitely. He and his brother already confessed to the man they hijacked the Mercedes from and their father that they did the bombings. Plus, they have all the evidence they need to put him away forever or give him the death penalty. The dying brother also spilled the beans before he died. What the authorities should be concentrating on now is finding out if there are others with the same mind-set and where are they and go and arrest them to make America safe!

.

 

[whitehall]

Calling bomber #2 an enemy combatant is a stretch. He may not have been a citizen but he was a radical college student not unlike Bill Ayers, Kathy Boudin Bernadine Dohrn and other radicals who terrorized America during the 60's and 70's. He should be treated like Tim McVeigh.

 

[Trajan]

Now, much needs to be done by all of us in the community of civilized nations. We must act against the criminal menace of terrorism with the full weight of the law, both domestic and international. We will act to indict, apprehend, and prosecute those who commit the kind of atrocities the world has witnessed in recent weeks. We can act together as free peoples who wish not to see our citizens kidnapped or shot or blown out of the skies -- just as we acted together to rid the seas of piracy at the turn of the last century. And incidentally, those of you who are legal scholars will note the law's description of pirates: "hostis humanis'' -- the enemies of all mankind. There can be no place on Earth left where it is safe for these monsters to rest or train or practice their cruel and deadly skills. We must act together, or unilaterally if necessary, to ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere.

Ronald Reagan, July 1985

Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

L. Paul Bremer III, the Reagan administration's Ambassador at Large for Counter-Terrorism 1987

and I disagree with that, they are not common criminals imho and treating them that way will I believe only hinder us.

 

[Trajan]

Does the surviving bomber get Mirandized? Whats should be his status in your humble opinions, how should we handle this?

Yes, once it's been established that the "ticking time bomb" threat has passed and he also gets a trial in civilian court. Complete with a court appointed lawyer if he can't afford one.

so; a) there is and should be no difference between a citizen and non citizen engaged in terrorist acts? b) you don't know if there is a ticking time bomb scenario unless, you interrogate him, I think that would help.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The correct answer is yes, he gets Mirandized.

And it will be the FBI who does it, because this is now a federal case.

Wrong.

The correct answer is not only "no." He will NOT get Miranda warnings, it is also that he damn well should NOT get Miranda warnings.

And the REASON is because this is one of the exigent situations where public safety trumps his alleged "right" to be informed of his right to remain silent.

The current front page of the Drudge Report suggests that the two scumbag brothers who were responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing may have been part of a suspected sleeper cell. See, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...unting-12-strong-1844844#.UXM54Yqm6hA.twitter

This is not just a good reason to forgo the "Miranda warnings," but a strong argument AGAINST treating the surviving piece of shit as a mere criminal within the context of our civilian courts and criminal justice system.

 

[numan]

'
Well, in my lifetime I have seen patsies murdered on national television, wars started by lies and phony "incidents", CIA criminal and "false flag" operations beyond count, people murdered by the US military and then dumped in the ocean before they could be properly identified -- so many inconsistencies in the "official versions" of events -- that it would come as a real relief if someone who is lynched by the media before he has a trial, and who is not killed before he can tell his story, actually makes it into court in one piece and can, in fact, have a fair trial in the United States.

It would be such a strange and unusual experience.

So I am all for this individual being read his rights and receiving a fair trial and actually being proven guilty!!

It would give me some hope that not all horrors and terrorist acts are the work of the US government and its agencies, and that sometimes there are Satanic acts of which our rulers can be proven not to be guilty.

One has almost lost hope that these horrors will not forevermore be shrouded in mystery and suspicion. Just possibly, this is a terrorist act of which The US government can be proven innocent.

I would not like any dereliction in following the rules of justice to spoil the clarity of such a novelty in our national experience.
.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

'
Well, in my lifetime I have seen patsies murdered on national television, wars started by lies and phony "incidents", CIA criminal and "false flag" operations beyond count, people murdered by the US military and then dumped in the ocean before they could be properly identified -- so many inconsistencies in the "official versions" of events -- that it would come as a real relief if someone who is lynched by the media before he has a trial, and who is not killed before he can tell his story, actually makes it into court in one piece and can, in fact, have a fair trial in the United States.

It would be such a strange and unusual experience.

So I am all for this individual being read his rights and receiving a fair trial and actually being proven guilty!!

It would give me some hope that not all horrors and terrorist acts are the work of the US government and its agencies, and that sometimes there are Satanic acts of which our rulers can be proven not to be guilty.

One has almost lost hope that these horrors will not forevermore be shrouded in mystery and suspicion. Just possibly, this is a terrorist act of which The US government can be proven innocent.

I would not like any dereliction in following the rules of justice to spoil the clarity of such a novelty in our national experience.
.

In your lifetime you have seen Oswald declare himself to be a patsy, but that didn't make him one.

You have rejected some of the bases for why Congress chose to authorize a war, but that doesn't amount to lying to get us into war.

And in your lifetime you have seen plenty of fair trials.

What we don't get treated to all that much is the notion that we should be treating acts of war as though they are the same things as mere crimes.

The rules of our criminal justice system should ALWAYS be followed where they apply.

But there is NO sensible reason to maintain they apply here.

The Obama Administration is merely repeating a mistake the liberals persist in making.

 

[tjvh]

If he's a U.S. citizen then he gets read his Miranda Rights.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If he's a U.S. citizen then he gets read his Miranda Rights.

Wrong.

But if they persist in labeling this just a "crime" and accord him a "trial," then the refusal to give him Miranda warnings before his custodial interrogation IS likely to result in the suppression of his statements.

That is to say: the prosecution will not be allowed to use his words (under the non-Mirnadized questioning) as evidence against him at his criminal trial.

Oh well.

Not exactly a big deal.

 

[Trajan]

If he's a U.S. citizen then he gets read his Miranda Rights.

and if he wasn't they would have mirandized him too...so whats the point in even pretending theres any distinction?

 

[Noomi]

Does the surviving bomber get Mirandized? Whats should be his status in your humble opinions, how should we handle this?

Read him his rights, like any other normal person would, and treat him like any other suspect in any other crime. There is no need to treat him differently.

 

[Toronado3800]

'
Well, in my lifetime I have seen patsies murdered on national television, wars started by lies and phony "incidents", CIA criminal and "false flag" operations beyond count, people murdered by the US military and then dumped in the ocean before they could be properly identified -- so many inconsistencies in the "official versions" of events -- that it would come as a real relief if someone who is lynched by the media before he has a trial, and who is not killed before he can tell his story, actually makes it into court in one piece and can, in fact, have a fair trial in the United States.

It would be such a strange and unusual experience.

So I am all for this individual being read his rights and receiving a fair trial and actually being proven guilty!!

It would give me some hope that not all horrors and terrorist acts are the work of the US government and its agencies, and that sometimes there are Satanic acts of which our rulers can be proven not to be guilty.

One has almost lost hope that these horrors will not forevermore be shrouded in mystery and suspicion. Just possibly, this is a terrorist act of which The US government can be proven innocent.

I would not like any dereliction in following the rules of justice to spoil the clarity of such a novelty in our national experience.
.

In your lifetime you have seen Oswald declare himself to be a patsy, but that didn't make him one.

You have rejected some of the bases for why Congress chose to authorize a war, but that doesn't amount to lying to get us into war.

And in your lifetime you have seen plenty of fair trials.

What we don't get treated to all that much is the notion that we should be treating acts of war as though they are the same things as mere crimes.

The rules of our criminal justice system should ALWAYS be followed where they apply.

But there is NO sensible reason to maintain they apply here.

The Obama Administration is merely repeating a mistake the liberals persist in making.

In an odd way we disagree and agree. I agree Obama and all the liberals who have found miranda rights only apply when convenient have made a mistake.

I got to say liberal and mistake in the same sentence! Lol.

More seriously, this issue makes strange bedfellows and the usual liberal/conservative lines get crossed with many folks liberally throwing away constitutional rights.