Turns out reading Miranda rights works fine after all

[Vast LWC]

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.

Good points, well, there you have it. The procedure already has a waiting period built in.

Terror suspects can already be fully Mirandized just as any other criminal would be, with wiggle room provided for public safety.

Seems like the existing law already suits everybody's needs.

 

[The T]

Google

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.

And it appears that he lied...he wasn't working alone...


Feds Arrest 3, Possibly Tied To Bomb Plot

What a surprise...And HOW did they glean this info?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

It is a common practice that when a suspect has evidence or testimony that will "bring in bigger fish", as it were, (or just "more fish" in this case) they allow the witness a plea deal in return for said evidence or testimony.

This is what I was referring to. Thus the "information gathering".

The suspect cannot enter such a deal, with any reasonable assurance that a deal actually exists, without documentation and a lawyer present.

For instance, here is an example from recent history:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21abramoff.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Believe it or not, it doesn't work like TV. If someone is going to bring in bigger fish the cop usually lets him off, which is how confidential informants work. Prosecutors making deals with low lifes to get bigger low lifes is actually pretty rare.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

 

[hjmick]

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.

Good luck with that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

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...

 

[George Costanza]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

New York v Quarles clearly established that public safety allows law enforcement to interrogate a suspect without Mirandizing him, or even allowing him to have a lawyer, and is not later subject to being challenged in court. Are you now trying to insist that terrorists actually have more rights than US citizens? That might be why some people automatically tune out politicians and left wingers who start talking about terrorist rights, they have no common sense.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

 

[The T]

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.

AMEN! GC is an idiot. He fails to understand that there are those that mean to rob him of his Liberty, and his LIFE if *HE* doesn't capitulate.

*HE* is NO student of history. He'd rather give Terrorist thugs Rights under law...that they aren't entitled to.

 

[Vast LWC]

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...

OK, I'm back.

This man was not an "illegal combatant", he was a US citizen.

You cannot designate US Citizens, engaged in a criminal act on US soil as "illegal combatants", and then remove their constitutional rights.

THAT would open up a HUGE can of worms. The consequences of such a law would be staggering.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Compromise is the essence of Democracy my friend.

Besides, there are still laws surrounding what police can or cannot do in the interim between detaining the suspect and Mirandizing them.

It's not like it gives them free reign to torture a suspect.

Anything they say that self-incriminating would then be suspect in court later on, but it would allow authorities to get vital information about possible accomplices that might still be trying to carry out the action.

 

[Avatar4321]

COPS lying certainly bothers me. There are rogues out there. By and large? Not.

I wish I could say the same...

 

[The T]

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.

 

[Rozman]

We as a country really need to be careful here.We all must be careful not to in any way shape or form impede the God given rights of the terrorists to blow us all to hell.That just wouldn't be right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.)

 

[George Costanza]

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.)

You're joking, right? Cite me one case where a court has ruled that it is OK for cops to lie. ONE case.

 

[The T]

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.)

My comment was toward those LE folks I know personally which includes many from 7 Counties here. They are all honorable men and women.