Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm okay with that, though I'm not sure 24 hours is necessary. Now, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the public safety exception in Miranda is that it designed to attempt to get information that could potentially prevent an immediate threat. My guess, if they don't have that information after 12 hours, we're screwed.
On the upside, the public safety exception allows for the interrogation and evidence gathered prior to reading a suspect his/her rights to be admissible in court.
And he pretty much claimed that he worked alone the entire time. Anyone claiming that he cooperated during his interrogation, or that he is cooperating now, needs to learn the difference between cooperation and trying to mislead investigators. Just because he is answering questions does not mean he is telling the truth.
I did not imply anywhere in my OP that Miranda rights "help the Government".
My posts that may even come close to that simply stated that a suspect that is assured of his rights and is provided an attorney, according to his Miranda Rights will be more assured that the authorities will play straight with him if a plea deal or similar situation is offered.
I will give you this. But you did imply that they work in helping the government, and still are.
You seem to misunderstand how plea deals work. Plea deals are the grease of our justice system because it would be impossible to take everyone who is arrested to trial. The government will always play straight in a plea deal because they know if they do not they will end up losing. They would end up having to toss out most cases simply because they are overwhelmed, and this would be a disaster for everyone involved. It does not matter if a suspect is Mirandized, or even has a lawyer, if the word ever gets out that pleas are no good no one will take them. This would be the end of our criminal justice system.
I got to go people, good talking to you, but the President is literally a block and a half from where I am right now, and I want to go see if can catch a glimpse.
Times Square Case Prompts Raids in Northeast - WSJ.com
Mr. Shahzad has been cooperating with prosecutors since his capture two days after the May 1 bombing attempt.
Ahh the wonders of good ol' fashioned police work, without having to go outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
"But wait", you ask, "didn't they read him his Miranda Rights? How can this be?"
Once again, the right-wing extremists are wrong. But then, when aren't they?
I have no problem with him being Mirandized, before or after questioning. I am with Napolitano and, <gulp>, Glenn Beck on this. As a citizen, Shahzad is entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.
I was also aware that he continued to sing after being read his rights, probably should have mentioned that. My bad... The situation makes me wonder, though. If he had been read his rights prior to the initial interrogation, would he have talked? Did he continue talking after being read his rights because he figured, what the hell? I've already been spilling my guts, why stop now?
Well, that is a valid question, as we will never know what was going on in the suspect's mind.
But to tell you the truth, I will say this:
I am not completely adamant on this matter, I think there is room for a bit of compromise.
Let's say if a suspect is questioned for a short while without Mirandizing them, with the expectation that they will be given their rights within, say, 24 hours, that does not bother me that much. But only in situations of national security or extremely high threat.
How does that sound?
I have no problem with him being Mirandized, before or after questioning. I am with Napolitano and, <gulp>, Glenn Beck on this. As a citizen, Shahzad is entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.
I was also aware that he continued to sing after being read his rights, probably should have mentioned that. My bad... The situation makes me wonder, though. If he had been read his rights prior to the initial interrogation, would he have talked? Did he continue talking after being read his rights because he figured, what the hell? I've already been spilling my guts, why stop now?
Well, that is a valid question, as we will never know what was going on in the suspect's mind.
But to tell you the truth, I will say this:
I am not completely adamant on this matter, I think there is room for a bit of compromise.
Let's say if a suspect is questioned for a short while without Mirandizing them, with the expectation that they will be given their rights within, say, 24 hours, that does not bother me that much. But only in situations of national security or extremely high threat.
How does that sound?
Not too good. Your proposal is kind of like being a little bit pregnant. Imagine a situation where a suspect is questioned for "a short period of time" without being Mirandized. Let's further imagine that this suspect truly does not know he has a right to a lawyer and/or a right to clam up and say nothing - he thinks he HAS to talk to the police.
So, in the "short period of time," he confesses to the crime. Game over. Doesn't matter what happens thereafter.
Don't give in to these idiots by allowing them to back you into a corner where you are suddenly creating exceptions for "matters of national security" or whatever other buzz phrase is the phrase of choice at the moment. Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants." As such, the same rules should apply to them as to any other criminal because, guess what - an awful lot of innocent "terrorists" were held for an awful long time as a direct consequence of being deprived of the rights due them as criminal suspects.
There is nothing magic about holding those suspected of a terrorist act as opposed to holding someone charged with a "normal" crime. Innocent people in both categories can be wrongfully arrested and wrongfully detained. They should all be afforded the same rights.
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants."
And THAT friends is how the US came to be vulnerable to 9-11...
Where our culture tolerates that 'point of view', we subject ourselves to ANOTHER 9-11.
In my opinion... Just that statement is sufficient to morally justify treating them as one would treat any other virus. Isolate it... and destroy it.
To tolerate it, is to insure one's own destruction.
ROFLMNAO... SWEET FALSE PREMISE...
First, there's nothing in the USC which provides that illegal combatants have any form of civil rights...
Second, he was going to cooperate... and it's for damn sure that her cooperation is a damn site short of what it would be were the Bush Administration still doing the 'interviews'...
Third, there's no way to trust any organization which claims to be fighting Ideological extremism, where the individual at the top of that organization is an ideological extremist...
Not too good. Your proposal is kind of like being a little bit pregnant. Imagine a situation where a suspect is questioned for "a short period of time" without being Mirandized. Let's further imagine that this suspect truly does not know he has a right to a lawyer and/or a right to clam up and say nothing - he thinks he HAS to talk to the police.
So, in the "short period of time," he confesses to the crime. Game over. Doesn't matter what happens thereafter.
Don't give in to these idiots by allowing them to back you into a corner where you are suddenly creating exceptions for "matters of national security" or whatever other buzz phrase is the phrase of choice at the moment. Terrorists are criminals - not "enemy combatants." As such, the same rules should apply to them as to any other criminal because, guess what - an awful lot of innocent "terrorists" were held for an awful long time as a direct consequence of being deprived of the rights due them as criminal suspects.
There is nothing magic about holding those suspected of a terrorist act as opposed to holding someone charged with a "normal" crime. Innocent people in both categories can be wrongfully arrested and wrongfully detained. They should all be afforded the same rights.
COPS lying certainly bothers me. There are rogues out there. By and large? Not.
COPS lying certainly bothers me. There are rogues out there. By and large? Not.
I wish I could say the same...
COPS lying certainly bothers me. There are rogues out there. By and large? Not.
I wish I could say the same...
I happen to work these folks on a daily basis in my area.
Lying cops? Don't feel bad about it, the courts have ruled that they are justified if they lie because only bad people are hurt. that makes them right. (Or at least justified.)
I wish I could say the same...
I happen to work these folks on a daily basis in my area.
Lying cops? Don't feel bad about it, the courts have ruled that they are justified if they lie because only bad people are hurt. that makes them right. (Or at least justified.)
