Confirmed:Miranda Rights Won't Be Read For Boston Bombing Suspect

[LibForestPaul]

Treating someone differently from everyone else is wrong no matter what anybody says.

This here.
further. The Supreme Court has ruled that those taken into custody must be informed of their rights. Those not informed of their rights can NOT have their testimony used in a court of law. I have no problem with the first part of the statement as long as the second part is upheld as well.

 

[Brett85]

this is why I made the remark elsewhere that if AF somehow gets to the US senate then Rand Paul will not be so isolated
and alone when wanting to speak at great length for longer than ten hours at a clip on the senate floor. if only some of us
could get to D.C and carry on for Doctor Ron or even give Rand some support when he has to take a stand in a major way.

AF would make Rand Paul look like a Communist.

 

[Dr.3D]

This here.
further. The Supreme Court has ruled that those taken into custody must be informed of their rights. Those not informed of their rights can NOT have their testimony used in a court of law. I have no problem with the first part of the statement as long as the second part is upheld as well.

Well, if they decide to send him to a military tribunal instead of a court of law, the second part would be moot anyway.

 

[Aratus]

the fact that we historically have had military tribunals on US soil reaching
into the realm that normally would be & ought to be civilian is not lost on me.

 

[tod evans]

No. You're imagining that I said something that I didn't actually say.

Actually I quoted you, but okay.

When did I ever say that I supported the drone bombings?

You didn't, I asked you a question that you failed to answer.

Is it really not possible to oppose the drone bombings without saying that our government is intentionally murdering innocent people overseas for no reason at all?

No, it's possible to do both, but I believe the person who does is being intellectually dishonest with himself.

 

[MelissaWV]

This here.
further. The Supreme Court has ruled that those taken into custody must be informed of their rights. Those not informed of their rights can NOT have their testimony used in a court of law. I have no problem with the first part of the statement as long as the second part is upheld as well.

I still have a problem with it.

It is the police (Feds, etc.) deciding that they have enough evidence that they can mistreat this guy, use tricks to get him to confess, and they don't really care because the statements can be tossed and they have enough to convinct.

This is dangerous on both fronts.

First, in other cases, the police might think this and promptly find that they were wrong and there was not enough slam-dunk evidence. The suspect goes free, even if they were guilty, even if they confessed, because the cops figured the rules don't apply in a slam-dunk.

Second, it opens the door for disturbing things being done to a suspect since the case is all but wrapped up already. You're already convicted; we only need you to snitch on everyone else. That's a really bad situation.

 

[Aratus]

i'm going to say that drones seem to be more accurate than the bombs from our B-52s and B-24s were in our other wars

 

[phill4paul]

AF would make Rand Paul look like a Communist.

Damn, now that right there ^^^^ was a true LOL.

 

[nobody's_hero]

ummm the rights don't need to be read because they are inalienable. Not being read Miranda 'rights' doesn't mean they cease to exist.

Looks like the word suspect is going the way of the words gay and war.

Suspect is being wrought into a synonym for known?

Yes yes but some people are just plain ignorant of their rights. That was the purpose of Miranda rights. It was actually a halfway decent idea of our government to let the accused know their rights.

But, now we have an 'exception.'

 

[tod evans]

i'm going to say that drones seem to be more accurate than the bombs from our B-52s and B-24s were in our other wars

But we are NOT at war!

Show me a declaration of war?

 

[Aratus]

We had civilians nuked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we dropped phosphorus bombs on poor Dresden Germany.
The drones of this war can be very specifically targeted but they are also killing innocent civilians. This is a logical
assessment, namely... its easier to isolate military targets with our better drones, and they can be highly accurate.

 

[Aratus]

But we are NOT at war!

Show me a declaration of war?

admittedly we have these succinct treaty obligations that explained why we went into Korea and Vietnam,
however you have made a telling point, since the U.N. Police Action of the early 1950s there has not been
an actual declaration of war. We are not inside the type of environment we were inside during WW1 + WW2.

 

[Lucille]

@naomirwolf So last night when I saw that they were targeting the Boston bomb suspects' miranda rights, I thought: 'okay so the next step is that they will say there may have been more bombings planned.' And today that is the case -- see the Guardian -- and that an 'elite interrogation team' is on the case. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/21/boston-bomb-suspect

I am not making a hypothesis about the nature of this event. I am just saying that it is very, very much in many senior officials' interest -- from Bush era till now, esp when there is a consensus forming about the fact that they committed torture -- to spin a narrative about a 'ticking bomb' scenario that wold justify 'harsh interrogations' retrospectively. Again -- I am not making a judgement about the nature of the event -- I am making a very strong judgment about the direction of the narrative being spun to the media about it.

Oh boy:

@naomirwolf Reports now that the Boston bombing suspect might be assigned 'combatant status.' You know what this means and I also note that I predicted this in 2007 -- that laws would be put in place that eventually would allow people in the US to be assigned a status that puts them outside the protection of the law.

 

[politics]

• If you as the goverment to suspend this civil right...

You will be saying “we the goverment find the suspect guilty” when what you as goverment should have say is “we the govermente acuse” and someone else judge.
• And thats a fundamental principle because the day you loose “your day in court” just because the goverment says so you or anybody can be facing jail just because the goverment says so.
• Also, if you miss the trial you miss the oportunity to realice what really happen. Otherwise you only have to trust in the goverment good faith.
And that is just dogma, “this is right because I say so” you dont need to probe anything, just accuse and judge, thats all you will need, and all your problems to find the truth are solved.
• Of course it makes you harder to find those are guilty, but thats why you live in a republic and in a democracy ruled by the law, no the man.
• To sostein, that civil rights dont apply is like legitimice preventive war every time the goverment says so. Those that understand that a preventive war is ok, need from the goverment the proof that the war is needed to prevent a major damage.
• In the case of civil rights the same thing occurs, if you are going to suspend those rights you need, at least, to show which is the major damage you are preventing.

 

[sailingaway]

I really like this Col. Morris Davis guy on twitter:

https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/326122246445879297

Dafna Linzer ‏@DafnaLinzer 24m
Mass. officials insists no imminent danger to public but DOJ sticks with "public safety exception" over Miranda: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/21/doj-continues-to-withhold-miranda-protections/ …
http://t.co/0LWn6Ot5s7

Col. Morris Davis
‏@ColMorrisDavis
@DafnaLinzer Apparently the state uses the normal human being definition of "imminent" and the feds are using the Obama unique version.

He was apparently chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, I'm wondering if he was one of the attorneys who filed an ethics complaint opening up the entire judicial limbo there.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We had civilians nuked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we dropped phosphorus bombs on poor Dresden Germany.
The drones of this war can be very specifically targeted but they are also killing innocent civilians. This is a logical
assessment, namely... its easier to isolate military targets with our better drones, and they can be highly accurate.

Really? I knew about the firebombing there, but never heard of phosphorous used. Very sad if that's true.

 

[Aratus]

a link says 700,000 phosphorus bombs were used in February of 1945 and in other
links we see estimates of the death totals being between 22,000 to 100,000 people.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Free-Dumb.

Not my countrymen.

I don't know these people.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Free-Dumb.

Not my countrymen.

I don't know these people.

Great candidates for the movie, "The Island".