Boston bomber refusing to talk after reading of Miranda rights-Thanks liberals

[Truthmatters]

you people screamed when he wasnt mirandized immediately and now your pissed he got mirandized?


you people have no shame

 

[JakeStarkey]

tm has the truth of the matter here.

 

[emilynghiem]

What a stupid comment, katz. Grow up or step off.

Dear KND and JS:
I agree in essence with KND statement, that if you breach the contract and violate terms of citizenship then you should not be able to invoke rights under the same.

In terms of JS being realistic, that this is impossible to enforce and seems silly.
yes, I have met someone who felt that NATURAL BORN citizenship could not be revoked.
while I argued the govt had more right to terminate citizenship than life under the death penalty which is arguably up to God to decide, while laws of citizenship are man made.

So this is a critical issue in law enforcement.
And I do believe KND is right in essence that we do need to enforce the social contract
consistently where citizens have responsibilities in order to invoke rights under laws.

Wow KND I am glad I agree with you on something.

And I do agree with JS that this is hard to enforce where it seems impossible because
people would "never agree"
So I would leave it to states or districts to give their residents a choice, that if they CHOOSE to live under requirements for citizenship, where everyone in that region FREELY AGREES to sign on to such standards that in order to live there, all residents sign in writing to uphold the laws and take financial and social responsibility for resolving grievances with repsect to due process and protection of interests of themselves and others equally,
then I do believe people could enforce more consistent constitutional standards on citizenship and governance. I don't think this can be imposed, but it can be freely chosen. Similar to classrooom rules in a school, where all the students/teachers agree to follow the same rules in the local handbook, or get removed from class or the school otherwise. You can't FORCE people to go to a school that signs onto rules they don't agree to follow; but any school body can CHOOSE how they want their school rules enforced, and peer-led enforcement has been shown to work well.

I believe teaching adults the "rules of the classroom" would strengthen respect for laws as belonging to the people in order to share responsibility and ownership. How much of the poor population got into prison BEFORE they ever had knowledge of the laws or their rights; and you wonder how they ended up there??? So widespread civics education would help with law enforcement, and rebuilding working relations between people and government. It's not just conservatives or libertarians or tea party who are into constitutional education and law enforcement; of the presidential candidates who came the closest to what I believe in, Ralph Nader also promoted some form of civics education, so this is a unifying concept across the political spectrum where no one disagrees with educating people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, I disagree with your analysis.

The 5th's protections are absolute until they are changed by appropriate constitutional procedure.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm sorry but in a country of 315,000,000 people, 4 dead individuals is not sufficient reason for us to suspend and give up rights (ie due process) that took thousands of years of fighting to obtain.

Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that the great majority of us were either serfs or slaves.
.

It depends how the system is used, if the person gives up their rights or not.

If you abuse the system to hide information and obstruct due process and justice,
then you lose your rights to free speech and to have equal say in the outcome.
You are gambling with your own rights to take the fifth amendment.

If you use the legal defense to cooperate with authorities and the system FULLY to get everyone's grievances and issues resolved in the course of due process, then you might be able to preserve your rights to the extent you respect that of others.
Others may still abuse information you give to impose greater punishment than you think you deserve, so it depends what conditions you can work out with the lawyers.

If the govt wants full disclosure, this can be a bargaining chip to have more say in the outcome in exchange for information.

If parties do not respect each other's rights equally, then it's a gamble.
Some may win some concessions, others may lose.

All sides can win if the focus is to correct and redress all grievances, where everyone is satisfied and all issues are included and resolved. Emotionally, people are not that perfect. so that is why our legal system is a gamble. it does not fully allow for people to be human.

You'd almost have to take people OUT of the political context our govt has become biased by, work through all these issues on a human level, reach an agreement then plug that back into the system to work things out logistically given the legal constraints.

My prayers to the families and recovering victims, to make their peace on this spiritual personal level. And hopefully to remove themselves and not depend on a biased political system for any kind of conditions on closure to be met because that's not guaranteed.
Whatever happens I pray for the healing and closure to be on an unconditional level so all pepole find peace regardless what our justice system does with this case. Peace to all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, no, it is not how the "system is used" that determines rights.

The 5th Amendment is the guide that determines rights.

 

[bripat9643]

What a stupid comment, katz. Grow up or step off.

Dear KND and JS:
I agree in essence with KND statement, that if you breach the contract and violate terms of citizenship then you should not be able to invoke rights under the same.

The constitution isn't a contract, and the government has no rights under it. The government cannot violate the 5th Amendment, period. It's not conditional on anything.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm sorry but in a country of 315,000,000 people, 4 dead individuals is not sufficient reason for us to suspend and give up rights (ie due process) that took thousands of years of fighting to obtain.

Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that the great majority of us were either serfs or slaves.
.

It depends how the system is used, if the person gives up their rights or not.

If you abuse the system to hide information and obstruct due process and justice,
then you lose your rights to free speech and to have equal say in the outcome.
You are gambling with your own rights to take the fifth amendment.

Wrong. You never lose your right to free speech or any other right protected by the Constitution.

Your understanding of the law is fascist to the bone.

 

[Mertex]

Isn't he entitled to the same rights Timothy McVeigh received?

Stupid liberal!

Er, McVeigh was a conservative.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm sorry but in a country of 315,000,000 people, 4 dead individuals is not sufficient reason for us to suspend and give up rights (ie due process) that took thousands of years of fighting to obtain.

Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that the great majority of us were either serfs or slaves.
.

It depends how the system is used, if the person gives up their rights or not.

If you abuse the system to hide information and obstruct due process and justice,
then you lose your rights to free speech and to have equal say in the outcome.
You are gambling with your own rights to take the fifth amendment.

If you use the legal defense to cooperate with authorities and the system FULLY to get everyone's grievances and issues resolved in the course of due process, then you might be able to preserve your rights to the extent you respect that of others.
Others may still abuse information you give to impose greater punishment than you think you deserve, so it depends what conditions you can work out with the lawyers.

If the govt wants full disclosure, this can be a bargaining chip to have more say in the outcome in exchange for information.

If parties do not respect each other's rights equally, then it's a gamble.
Some may win some concessions, others may lose.

All sides can win if the focus is to correct and redress all grievances, where everyone is satisfied and all issues are included and resolved. Emotionally, people are not that perfect. so that is why our legal system is a gamble. it does not fully allow for people to be human.

You'd almost have to take people OUT of the political context our govt has become biased by, work through all these issues on a human level, reach an agreement then plug that back into the system to work things out logistically given the legal constraints.

My prayers to the families and recovering victims, to make their peace on this spiritual personal level. And hopefully to remove themselves and not depend on a biased political system for any kind of conditions on closure to be met because that's not guaranteed.
Whatever happens I pray for the healing and closure to be on an unconditional level so all pepole find peace regardless what our justice system does with this case. Peace to all.

But Emily, the whole point of having a "right" is that it can't be suspended under any circumstance. If the gov't can suspend it during any occasion it deems as "suitable", then how dependable is that right? What's even the point of having it on the books?

How about we just say "based on the situation, the gov't will decide whether or not we will enjoy the right to due process"? See where I'm getting at?

These rights we have as Americans are important, Emily, and I realize that it's easy for us (who have it so good here) to take them for granted. I urge you not to!
.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I disagree with your analysis.

The 5th's protections are absolute until they are changed by appropriate constitutional procedure.

Yes, you have that right under secular laws. you are right, that part is guaranteed.
what I am saying is to use the lawyer-protected speech to facilitate due process,
not to violate it. you have the right to a lawyer, but not necessarily to obstruct justice.

Otherwise, you risk losing rights and freedom under spiritual laws,
depending if you abuse the fifth amendment to violate spiritual laws on equal justice.
how can the spirit o fthe law be on your side if you abuse it to obstruct justice for others?

If you take the fifth but abuse it to obstruct the process
you are gambling with your other rights by putting your interests above others'
where you risk losing sympathy and invoking greater punishment.

JS you cannot take the fifth amendment "to remain silent" as meaning forcing people to deny or omit information, and guarantee the first amendment at the same time. you already risk losing your first amendment rights "to free speech".

JS people have a choice under law to exercise first amendment rights if they chose.
just because they are not required, and have the right to remain silent,
doesn't mean they are forced to remain silent as in deny or omit information.
You can still invoke your rights and use the legal system to negotiate full cooperation where no information is withheld, but it is released under conditions that protect the terms that you agree to in order to cooperate fully under the legal defense of counsel.

I think this is a better way to protect your own first amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom to have more of a say in what you BELIEVE to be a fair consequence.

If all the lawyers who counsel defendants were to enforce more consistent standards on due process and not obstructing justice unconstitutionally by excluding the equal rights of others, then maybe they'd be able to get more cooperation out of both the defendants with information the victims need for closure and out of the government allowing for more say in treatment and restitution that both the offenders and surviving victims agree upon.

Otherwise the abuse of the fifth amendment to obstruct due process and justice
contradicts the spirit of constitutional laws of equal justice and protection of interests
so it perpetuates the political backlog in our courts and prison system we have now.

as more people move toward restorative justice and using the SAME laws to negotiate meaningful restitution and correction to problems, then we might reduce this backlog.

You can still protect people's rights not to incriminate themselves, but use defense to freely negotiate terms to further justice by corrections and restitution, not to obstruct it.

 

[candycorn]

For over forty years Police Officers have had to tell persons they arrested that they had the right to an attorney and anything they said would be held against them and nobody on the left or right gave a damn that slickster attorneys were getting felons off the hook for no other reason than a rookie cop forgot to Marandize a monster. Here we are in the 21st century and all of a sudden, duh, everyone is hysterical that the feds are forced to give a citizen his Miranda rights. Live with it or get rid of it but you might be next if you allow the federal government to choose which citizen is covered by the Constitution.

Right on!

It would seem to me that if you're a law and order type you'd want to make double damn sure that all of the "i's" are dotted and all of the "t's" are crossed so this bastard doesn't have evidence thrown out due to irregularities.

If he's guilty, he deserves to rot in hell but before that, he deserves a long painful stay in one of our federal prisons. I'm sure his redemmer will take care of the former but we should strive to make sure he suffers the latter

 

[emilynghiem]

But Emily, the whole point of having a "right" is that it can't be 1. suspended under any circumstance. 1. f the gov't can suspend it during any occasion it deems as "suitable", then how dependable is that right? What's even the point of having it on the books?

2. How about we just say "based on the situation, the gov't will decide whether or not we will enjoy the right to due process"? See where I'm getting at?

These rights we have as Americans are important, Emily, and I realize that it's easy for us (who have it so good here) to take them for granted. I urge you not to!
.

1. I'm not saying to suspend that right, but to make sure it's not abused. Not by imposing from the govt side, but by educating the people on the defense side to choose not to abuse the laws where they risk protections to the same degree they deny this to others.
you still keep and enforce laws as is but people can use their rights differently under that structure. you use your first amendment free speech right to petition and free exercise of religion to negotiate better terms where you DON'T fear incrimination or punishment.
But you get the conditions you want by agreeing to cooperate fully under legal defense.

2. the govt already imposes all kinds of conditions on the process that makes it
almost impossible to have due process protected equally for all people.
I am not trying to introduce this problem of arbitrary justice, which already exists, but undo the conflicts causing this which is already going on and skewing the system where it's a gamble and does not guarantee anyone's rights the way it is run.

3. I am trying to encourage greater respect for equal protection of all interests under law, as the spirit of the laws based on consent of the governed, and to interpret and apply
all existing laws WITHIN that context of equal justice, NOT suspending these laws
but using them in context where no one's right are violated. that is not suspending
laws to ask people to enforce and use them consistently within constitutional due process.

I think the misunderstanding is you think I am saying that the govt takes rights away; but what I am saying is that people freely choose to use their rights under law in ways that don't abuse the system to obstruct justice. This is not done by govt force or taking away laws, but educating people on the spiritual process of justice so they choose freely to further and work with it, not against it; to protect their own rights by respecting those of others equally. Those are spiritual laws, so following those within the secular system.

The only laws that might change, are any restrictions preventing certain sentences from being carried out. Such as if the victims and offenders agree to a restitution program to pay back debts and damages before the person is executed, if the law does not permit such labor to be done freely by the offender as restitution, then maybe that law might change if the people involved in a case argue it is necessary for justice and closure. But such agreements can be legally reached using the given laws of free speech, due process, right to petition for redress of grievances, even free exercise of religion etc. So this is not going against the given laws, but using them in new ways for restoring justice and peace.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, no, it is not how the "system is used" that determines rights.

The 5th Amendment is the guide that determines rights.

Again you are talking about the secular laws and I agree with what you are saying
in that context.

I am talking about the greater context of the spiritual laws.
That if you abuse your rights, then you risk losing them.

You can have free speech on the books.

but if you abuse free speech to harass or bully someone,
guess what, by those same laws people react either bullying back or
threatening to cut off whatever is enabling you to abuse your free speech.

For example if you abuse your website to post slander or illegal photos,
you may lose access to your website and internet.

JS can we at least agree on this.

If you don't DO ANYTHING for which you could be incriminated for,
then you don't lose either your first amendment or fifth amendment rights
because you have no fear of incrimination to begin with.

Can we agree if that once you do something that you could be incriminated for,
then you lose your first amendment rights to speak freely?

do you see what I mean?

the first and fifth amendment rights remain on the books as is.

but how you use or abuse these, then you lose your rights on THAT level.
NOT by taking the laws away, but by your own actions you limit your freedom YOURSELF.

you and I are talking about two different contexts.
I am NOT talking about "losing rights" in the legal sense that you are.
I am talking about losing rights and freedom on the spiritual level
of "reaping what you sow" which doesnt change the laws on the books one iota.

Sorry this wasn't clear
I don't disagree with what you are saying,
so it seems we are talking past each other. sorry for this Jake

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take up your changes to the 5th Amendment by constitutional action, not by procedural definition.

 

[KevinWestern]

But Emily, the whole point of having a "right" is that it can't be 1. suspended under any circumstance. 1. f the gov't can suspend it during any occasion it deems as "suitable", then how dependable is that right? What's even the point of having it on the books?

2. How about we just say "based on the situation, the gov't will decide whether or not we will enjoy the right to due process"? See where I'm getting at?

These rights we have as Americans are important, Emily, and I realize that it's easy for us (who have it so good here) to take them for granted. I urge you not to!
.

1. I'm not saying to suspend that right, but to make sure it's not abused. Not by imposing from the govt side, but by educating the people on the defense side to choose not to abuse the laws where they risk protections to the same degree they deny this to others.
you still keep and enforce laws as is but people can use their rights differently under that structure. you use your first amendment free speech right to petition and free exercise of religion to negotiate better terms where you DON'T fear incrimination or punishment.
But you get the conditions you want by agreeing to cooperate fully under legal defense.

2. the govt already imposes all kinds of conditions on the process that makes it
almost impossible to have due process protected equally for all people.
I am not trying to introduce this problem of arbitrary justice, which already exists, but undo the conflicts causing this which is already going on and skewing the system where it's a gamble and does not guarantee anyone's rights the way it is run.

3. I am trying to encourage greater respect for equal protection of all interests under law, as the spirit of the laws based on consent of the governed, and to interpret and apply
all existing laws WITHIN that context of equal justice, NOT suspending these laws
but using them in context where no one's right are violated. that is not suspending
laws to ask people to enforce and use them consistently within constitutional due process.

I think the misunderstanding is you think I am saying that the govt takes rights away; but what I am saying is that people freely choose to use their rights under law in ways that don't abuse the system to obstruct justice. This is not done by govt force or taking away laws, but educating people on the spiritual process of justice so they choose freely to further and work with it, not against it; to protect their own rights by respecting those of others equally. Those are spiritual laws, so following those within the secular system.

The only laws that might change, are any restrictions preventing certain sentences from being carried out. Such as if the victims and offenders agree to a restitution program to pay back debts and damages before the person is executed, if the law does not permit such labor to be done freely by the offender as restitution, then maybe that law might change if the people involved in a case argue it is necessary for justice and closure. But such agreements can be legally reached using the given laws of free speech, due process, right to petition for redress of grievances, even free exercise of religion etc. So this is not going against the given laws, but using them in new ways for restoring justice and peace.

Aren't we just discussing whether or not the suspect should have been granted the same miranda rights as every other US citizen who is arrested?

My point was that these are legal rights, and these legal rights shouldn't be suspended on 'a pick and choose basis' by our Gov't. If they can be suspended at any willy nilly time, then what's the point of even calling them a right?

Sorry if I'm missing your point...


.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wrong. You never lose your right to free speech or any other right protected by the Constitution.

Your understanding of the law is fascist to the bone.

NO, I am not saying that you lose your inalienable rights under the Constitution.

I am saying that by natural laws, if you abuse your freedom or free speech
to violate the equal rights of others, then the natural consequence is that
you lose your freedom to the same degree.

When OJ Simpson took the fifth amendment, and chose to withhold information,
he lost his first amendment right to speak freely. Everytime he does, there
is backlash and this comes back on him. He lost his ability to assemble
peaceably in a restaurant, because his presence caused such a ruckus
the owner had to ask him to leave, which he did politely which I respect.

Please see msg abvoe to JS.
I tried to explain that the laws on the books remain the same,
but spiritually you reap what you sow, your karma comes back to you,
so if you obstruct or abuse others, then you run into consequences
that obstruct your freedom in return. these are natural laws
because of the spirit of the law is equal justice for all;
so if you go against that spirit, then you violate your own rights to it.

if you violate the consent of others, they will not respect your consent either.
just a natural law of cause and effect or karma.
so no, I am not talking about taking away any rights or laws in writing,
but support teaching people how to enforce and apply them consistently so
we can have equal protection and equal justice for all and quit these abuses.

 

[emilynghiem]

Take up your changes to the 5th Amendment by constitutional action, not by procedural definition.

I am not talking about changing or taking away 5th amendment rights.

I am just saying for people to use all rights consistently that already exist,
where it doesn't violate their own rights to free speech, due process,
right to petition and free exercise of religion, and equal protection under law.

If you really want the right not to incriminate yourself,
then don't do anything incriminating and don't obstruct due process
where people would use govt to punish or force you.

so this comes from the person's choice and is not
about govt taking away changing or denying any laws or rights
that I agree exist on the books and are not the issue.

the issue is how we use our rights ourselves
either under a retributive system of jdugment or punishment
or a restorative system of justice that uses due process to
resolve grievances for the sake of equal justice and protection of all parties
not just one side or the other.

we already have this freedom to invoke restorative justice
under the first amendment, so the laws don't need to change
but we can still change how we use them, we the people,
I'm not talking about the govt changing things arbitrarily without people's consent.

but people choosing to invoke and enforce and apply laws
we already have to further due process and justice not to obstuct either one.

 

[emilynghiem]

Aren't we just discussing whether or not the suspect should have been granted the same miranda rights as every other US citizen who is arrested?

My point was that these are legal rights, and these legal rights shouldn't be suspended on 'a pick and choose basis' by our Gov't. If they can be suspended at any willy nilly time, then what's the point of even calling them a right?

Sorry if I'm missing your point...

.

Yes I agree with your point.
the govt cannot suspend those rights.
I am saying the people can choose to speak freely,
even while having the choice to remain silent.

In order to remove the real threat of incrimination
I recommend using the lawyer-defended speech to
negotiate terms by which ALL information will be released
in exchange for the person protecting equal voice, free speech
and consent to the outcome of the sentence, restitution etc.

So this is coming from teh PERSON not from teh govt requiring this.
the person chooses NOT to obstruct justice by only defending their
own interests at the expense of others, but using free speech to appeal for mercy
by agreeing to answer to ALL issues and grievances in exchange
for having equal free speech or free say in what happens to them,
equally as all the other parties. So all can have closure and justice,
but they have to agree on the terms freely by legally protected negotiations.

this is not from the govt but from the people asking to use their
rights this way under the given laws that don't change. they still have the
same rights and laws to either speak freely, remain silent, or use legal counsel for defense.
only if they ask for restitution terms that stretch the laws may some laws
need to be changed if they are going to agree on the sentencing conditions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take up your changes to the 5th Amendment by constitutional action, not by procedural definition.

If you really want the right not to incriminate yourself, then don't do anything incriminating and don't obstruct due process where people would use govt to punish or force you.

The 5th permits us to use the rights as we, the citizen, sees fit.

That cannot be changed except by constitutional procedure.