So, now liberals don't believe in the 5th and 6th ammendment either?

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't read your stupid links. If you can ever form a real argument. I'll look at it. I know you're a liberal zombie who accepts any explanation from your lord.

Well, supported facts trump your made-up bullshit. The government is on legal footing.

This is the first time I have considered pos repping you in a while, good job on making some real, and legitimate, points. You did some good research this time, even if I actually think you were just looking for a way to defend Obama.

By the way, if you want to know what an actual lawyer who has handled federal cases says about this instead of relying on reporters go here: The Volokh Conspiracy » Tsarnaev and Miranda Rights

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How does this website KNOW whether or not the kid was read his rights?

Despite initial reports to the contrary, FBI agents did not read Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights immediately after he was taken into custody.

I see nothing in this article that supports the notion that they KNOW what happened.

Because the FBI is telling everyone they did not to avoid any possible confusion at trial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't read your stupid links. If you can ever form a real argument. I'll look at it. I know you're a liberal zombie who accepts any explanation from your lord.

Well, supported facts trump your made-up bullshit. The government is on legal footing.

They would and that site has some good information in it but I don’t think that it definitively shows that they are on good legal footing here and does not even address the underlying question in the OP as to whether or not this is a good thing.

If you respect the constitution, you have to find the idea that people are not read their Miranda rights as pretty damn suspect. The court case that is cited in the link provided makes sense, the cop was locating an immediate threat while apprehending the suspect. I see nothing wrong with that and agree with the SCOTUS. What I find hard to swallow is that terror suspects are now somehow exempt for long periods of time without and clear ‘immediate danger’ and just allowing this because the government says that it needs to in order to keep us ‘safe.’ How long has he been in custody without those rights being read? How long before they decide that he actually does have the right to a lawyer and the right to be silent? Because he is a suspect in a terror case he waves all his rights now?


That line of thought is terrible and very dangerous to our rights. It is also not the same thing that the SCOTUS ruling that is mentioned. It is the concept taken to extreme measures to the point that it does not resemble the same thing.

The public safety exception works for questions about other bombs, and it might even work for questions about a possible extended plot. Personally, I don't know why they are making a big deal about the public safety exemption, they should just announce up front they are not going to use what he says in court and ask him all the questions they want. This is not only legal, it makes a lot more sense than trying to shoehorn the questioning into a narrow exemption. Then again, if they get away with it, they can apply it to a lot of other cases, and eventually completely undermine Miranda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm cause the cops said they didn't.

Derp..

It does NOT say that in the link, lad.

That link contradicts itself.

WHO SAID the cops did not read him his rights?

The author does not tell us.

He asserts the fact but does not tell us who told him that fact.

Typical of propaganda...

The FBI spokesperson at the press conference last night said he was not read his Miranda rights and also said under federal law, because he was a terrorist, he was not entitled to that right.

Which is true, if they are invoking the NDAA despite Obama's promise not to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.

Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

Wrong.

He can demand a lawyer at any point, despite your absurd understanding of the law. He can also refuse to say anything, and the government cannot do a damn thing about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.

Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

Yep. And then he can be deemed an enemy combatant and never be read his rights at all.

Thank you president Dubya and all his supporters.

The law that Bush signed expired, you cannot blame him for the fact that the Democratic controlled Congress passed a new version of it, or for the fact that Obama actually signed it.

 

[kaz]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.

Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

Yep. And then he can be deemed an enemy combatant and never be read his rights at all.

Thank you president Dubya and all his supporters.

The law that Bush signed expired, you cannot blame him for the fact that the Democratic controlled Congress passed a new version of it, or for the fact that Obama actually signed it.

Actually Ravi could blame W for Obama not quitting smoking. We're not talking "Fair and Balanced" here...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and here they are pretending Obama and the FBI are doing something illegal for poltical reasons.


they have no shame and will lie about anything straight into the face of cold hard facts.

How did the republican party become so very very stupid and sociopathic?

They are doing it for political reasons, it just happens to be legal.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Think for a second. We as Americans are losing rights left and right, pun. Lol

The guy is citizen. He has constitutional rights.

And the whole search every home without a warrant was a violation as well. Not to mention making people stay inside.

Searching and feeling up children at airports.

All of these are clear infringements on our personal freedoms.

The phone tapping, again another infringement on our privacy.

Chip chip chip. And we are letting it happen out of fear. We've let these terrorists take away our freedoms.

I understand they want info from this guy but Obama wanted to give rights to actually non citizen terrorists yet he is waiving those with this guy?

It's a valid point.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=police%20authority%20law%20in%20emergencies%20&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mass.gov%2Feohhs%2Fdocs%2Fdph%2Fcdc%2Freporting%2Fiq-community-caretaking-function.rtf&ei=QcxyUaeWB4qprQGjrIGQBg&usg=AFQjCNFvbivXCvI_OFskF2uQ1S6SbY1avA&bvm=bv.45512109,d.aWM&cad=rja

You're as worthless as Laktating. If you have something to say then say it. Nobody wants to scour your f'ing links to try and deduce whatever feeble point you're trying to make.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If this were a Republican administration Lakhota would be screaming bloody murder and TGG would be defending........ Ya can't make this shit up folks!!

Thank you Mister Minister of Propaganda. At no point have I defended this guy outright. I've stated that he has rights under our Constitution. Do you have a problem with that concept or are you too busy trying to diminish me to care?

Damn dud, you really are blinded by stupidity.
By the way we might be able to get the left half of your body reattached....... If you want to that is......... The hard part will be removing the red blinders that have fused with what little brain you have left but I think it's doable.

Nowhere in that gobbly gook of incoherent gaffes did I see anything that resembled an attempt at a response. I guess you just know you got called out and we'll leave it at that.

 

[Ravi]

The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.

Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.

First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a police stopped a man they suspected of a crime, and found an empty shoulder holster, and asked him where the gun was. The thinking was a clear example of the imminent danger to the public outweighed the requirement for a warning. Since these guys actually set of bimbs, and even threw some during the pursuit, there is a clear danger to the public, which actually falls into precedent.

Besides, he can still refuse to answer.

New York v. Quarles | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Second, unless they are actually interrogating him with the intent to use what he says at trial there is nothing anywhere that requires a Miranda warning. They can sit back and question him as much as they want, and even question him while he is under the influence of drugs and cannot legally waive his rights, as long as they do not use it in court.

If you want to gripe about rights you should at least know what you are talking about. Personally, being a guy that wants to make it as hard as possible for the government to prosecute someone, I have absolutely no problem with either proceedure. If there is a genuine possibility of danger to others the government should be able to question a suspect without telling him he can shut up, and use anything he says against him. They should also be able to ask him questions if they do not intend to use anything he says against him, even if he invokes his right to remain silent and asks for a lawyer.

A day of sanity from QW. Well done.

 

[FJO]

Name any German or Japanese prisoner of war to whom the Miranda rights were read, and if not, why not and if they should have been but were not, why not?

Then go ahead and show the uniform this piece of sub-human trash wore, which would give him the protection afforded by the Geneva Convention.

You would sing a different tune if the brothers got your wife and kid(s).

NO??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excellent analysis, QWB.

 

[FA_Q2]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.

Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

Wrong.

He can demand a lawyer at any point, despite your absurd understanding of the law. He can also refuse to say anything, and the government cannot do a damn thing about it.

Is this really true though? I know that he can remain silent because that is a natural ability but if he lawyers up do they actually have to provide one before they continue? It seems to me that he has no right of counsel until they actually put this to court and that during this time period they would not have to observe the demand.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.

Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.

First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a police stopped a man they suspected of a crime, and found an empty shoulder holster, and asked him where the gun was. The thinking was a clear example of the imminent danger to the public outweighed the requirement for a warning. Since these guys actually set of bimbs, and even threw some during the pursuit, there is a clear danger to the public, which actually falls into precedent.

Besides, he can still refuse to answer.

New York v. Quarles | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Second, unless they are actually interrogating him with the intent to use what he says at trial there is nothing anywhere that requires a Miranda warning. They can sit back and question him as much as they want, and even question him while he is under the influence of drugs and cannot legally waive his rights, as long as they do not use it in court.

If you want to gripe about rights you should at least know what you are talking about. Personally, being a guy that wants to make it as hard as possible for the government to prosecute someone, I have absolutely no problem with either proceedure. If there is a genuine possibility of danger to others the government should be able to question a suspect without telling him he can shut up, and use anything he says against him. They should also be able to ask him questions if they do not intend to use anything he says against him, even if he invokes his right to remain silent and asks for a lawyer.

A day of sanity from QW. Well done.

The public safety exception clearly applied to an imminent threat. I have seen nothing that shows the officers lives were in danger and that they should withhold his Miranda Rights.

And if you're gonna lecture me about shit then perhaps you should know what the **** you're droning on about.

 

[Misty]

There IS a public safety exemption in the Miranda law, however it is limited. As soon as the suspect is able to answer questions, post-surgery, the law goes into effect. It will suspend in 48 hours and then the Miranda laws apply.
Basically, he loses the right to remain silent and right to counsel for two days.

Wrong.
He can demand a lawyer at any point, despite your absurd understanding of the law. He can also refuse to say anything, and the government cannot do a damn thing about it.

Is this really true though? I know that he can remain silent because that is a natural ability but if he lawyers up do they actually have to provide one before they continue? It seems to me that he has no right of counsel until they actually put this to court and that during this time period they would not have to observe the demand.

Yep he can ask for a lawyer and say nothing. Then the district attorney has to make a case against him and prove it to a jury or a judge.

 

[mamooth]

Obama can give the order to murder an American on American soil who is not an imminent threat to anyone with a drone.

Yes, he can, being that Congress directly voted to give the president such authority.

However, the White House also said he won't. Very dishonest to leave that little bit out.

What is it that you Republitarians find so upsetting? That a Republican congress voted to give Bush those powers, or that Obama said he won't use them?

It's good to be a liberal, being I don't have TheParty ordering me to flipflop. Most liberals were fine with Bush doing targeted killings. The Nader/Kucinich fringe wasn't, but that group has been attacking Obama even more savagely than they attacked Bush. The consistent part is the consistency of each individual liberal.

In contrast, the conservatives are a-flippin' and a-floppin' like a fish in the boat. Not a peep of protest when Bush did it, but now all in a tizzy because they suddenly realized Obama has the same powers.

If you Republitarians are so concerned about targeted killings, pressure Congress to vote on a new AUMF, to rewrite the old one and restrict the president's power. Or just continue to wail how awful it is. That is, until a Republican president takes office, at which time you'll all instantly forget how awful it is.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Obama does not have the legal right to murder whoever he wants. Congress has not given him that right. Admittedly, there's plenty of gray area; especially in foreign affairs abroad.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I LOL at all these liberals who don't care about their rights now that their god is doing whatever he wants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The captured BMB suspect was not read his Miranda Rights and the gov. cites a public safety exception.

Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that Miranda Rights are necessary based upon the 5th amendment that a person should not be compelled to self-incrimination and the 6th amendment, which offers a right to counsel.

First, the Supreme court actually created the public safety exception to Miranda warnings based on a case where a police stopped a man they suspected of a crime, and found an empty shoulder holster, and asked him where the gun was. The thinking was a clear example of the imminent danger to the public outweighed the requirement for a warning. Since these guys actually set of bimbs, and even threw some during the pursuit, there is a clear danger to the public, which actually falls into precedent.

Besides, he can still refuse to answer.

New York v. Quarles | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Second, unless they are actually interrogating him with the intent to use what he says at trial there is nothing anywhere that requires a Miranda warning. They can sit back and question him as much as they want, and even question him while he is under the influence of drugs and cannot legally waive his rights, as long as they do not use it in court.

If you want to gripe about rights you should at least know what you are talking about. Personally, being a guy that wants to make it as hard as possible for the government to prosecute someone, I have absolutely no problem with either proceedure. If there is a genuine possibility of danger to others the government should be able to question a suspect without telling him he can shut up, and use anything he says against him. They should also be able to ask him questions if they do not intend to use anything he says against him, even if he invokes his right to remain silent and asks for a lawyer.

A day of sanity from QW. Well done.

I promise not to let it happen too often.