Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Boston marathon terrorist attack? « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 28

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#240 : April 25, 2013, 09:18:32 PM

  Im not saying this country doesn't do it all the time,  im just telling you how it should be. If they are taken into custody in the midst of a crime,  yes they should be given a trial.


Even if they are not a US Citizen??  The older brother was not a citizen, if he had been captured does he get a trial?

The answer is "yes," as a matter of basic human rights.  There's plenty of room to debate the manner of trial, but every human being is entitled to face his or her accusers and have his/her day before being held indefinitely. 

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#241 : April 26, 2013, 01:06:08 AM

  Im not saying this country doesn't do it all the time,  im just telling you how it should be. If they are taken into custody in the midst of a crime,  yes they should be given a trial.


Even if they are not a US Citizen??  The older brother was not a citizen, if he had been captured does he get a trial?

The answer is "yes," as a matter of basic human rights.  There's plenty of room to debate the manner of trial, but every human being is entitled to face his or her accusers and have his/her day before being held indefinitely.

Unless you are a male college student being accused of sexual harassment or assault, then those rights no longer apply.  But if you're a mass-murdering terrorist you deserve those protections.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#242 : April 26, 2013, 10:02:25 AM

  Im not saying this country doesn't do it all the time,  im just telling you how it should be. If they are taken into custody in the midst of a crime,  yes they should be given a trial.


Even if they are not a US Citizen??  The older brother was not a citizen, if he had been captured does he get a trial?

The answer is "yes," as a matter of basic human rights.  There's plenty of room to debate the manner of trial, but every human being is entitled to face his or her accusers and have his/her day before being held indefinitely.

Unless you are a male college student being accused of sexual harassment or assault, then those rights no longer apply.  But if you're a mass-murdering terrorist you deserve those protections.

huh?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2769
Online
#243 : April 26, 2013, 10:58:37 AM

Unless you are a male college student being accused of sexual harassment or assault, then those rights no longer apply.  But if you're a mass-murdering terrorist you deserve those protections.

huh?

It's more far-right lunacy. Expect to see another long winded,  far right, copy and paste job, shortly.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#244 : April 26, 2013, 04:56:26 PM

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/25/carjack-victim-recounts-his-harrowing-night/BhQWGzarWee8MZ6KtMHJNN/story.html

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2769
Online
#245 : April 29, 2013, 10:41:28 PM

By Glenn Greenwald

The initial debate over the treatment of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev focused on whether he should be advised of his Miranda rights or whether the "public safety exception" justified delaying it. In the wake of news reports that he had been Mirandized and would be charged in a federal court, I credited the Obama DOJ for handling the case reasonably well thus far. As it turns out, though, Tsarnaev wasn't Mirandized because the DOJ decided he should be. Instead, that happened only because a federal magistrate, on her own, scheduled a hospital-room hearing, interrupted the FBI's interrogation which had been proceeding at that point for a full 16 hours, and advised him of his right to remain silent and appointed him a lawyer. Since then, Tsarnaev ceased answering the FBI's questions.

But that controversy was merely about whether he would be advised of his Miranda rights. Now, the Los Angeles Times, almost in passing, reports something which, if true, would be a much more serious violation of core rights than delaying Miranda warnings - namely, that prior to the magistrate's visit to his hospital room, Tsarnaev had repeatedly asked for a lawyer, but the FBI simply ignored those requests, instead allowing the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group to continue to interrogate him alone:


"Tsarnaev has not answered any questions since he was given a lawyer and told he has the right to remain silent by Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler on Monday, officials said.

"Until that point, Tsarnaev had been responding to the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, including admitting his role in the bombing, authorities said. A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule."

Delaying Miranda warnings under the "public safety exception" - including under the Obama DOJ's radically expanded version of it - is one thing. But denying him the right to a lawyer after he repeatedly requests one is another thing entirely: as fundamental a violation of crucial guaranteed rights as can be imagined. As the lawyer bmaz comprehensively details in this excellent post, it is virtually unheard of for the "public safety" exception to be used to deny someone their right to a lawyer as opposed to delaying a Miranda warning (the only cases where this has been accepted were when "the intrusion into the constitutional right to counsel ... was so fleeting in both it was no more than a question or two about a weapon on the premises of a search while the search warrant was actively being executed").


To ignore the repeated requests of someone in police custody for a lawyer, for hours and hours, is just inexcusable and legally baseless.

As law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained in the Los Angeles Times last week, the Obama DOJ was already abusing the "public safety" exception by using it to delay Miranda warnings for hours, long after virtually every public official expressly said that there were no more threats to the public safety. As he put it: "this exception does not apply here because there was no emergency threat facing law enforcement."


-------------
Greenwald continued..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/tsarnaev-right-to-counsel-denied


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#246 : April 29, 2013, 11:57:23 PM

As law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained in the Los Angeles Times last week, the Obama DOJ was already abusing the "public safety" exception by using it to delay Miranda warnings for hours, long after virtually every public official expressly said that there were no more threats to the public safety. As he put it: "this exception does not apply here because there was no emergency threat facing law enforcement."

"The day he was captured they may have a had a reasonable basis, but as time passes the argument dissipates. "

No, you have it backwards, In fact,  the opposite.

 ;)

Chemerinsky  is the author of one of the most widely-used legal textbooks in America and the concept he is discussing (the dissipating exception) should be familiar to any first year law student. Now Durango, who was that you were quoting in italics?  Who was that you were saying was wrong? 

lol

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#247 : April 30, 2013, 09:19:47 AM

Vince, you may know the answer to this. Isn't the Miranda thing not that big of a deal anyway? Reading someone's Miranda rights doesn't give them the rights. They already have those rights per the Constitution. The only purpose of the Miranda process is ensure that any information given by the suspect can be lawfully admissible in court, right?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#248 : April 30, 2013, 11:24:40 AM

Vince, you may know the answer to this. Isn't the Miranda thing not that big of a deal anyway? Reading someone's Miranda rights doesn't give them the rights. They already have those rights per the Constitution. The only purpose of the Miranda process is ensure that any information given by the suspect can be lawfully admissible in court, right?

essentially yes,

Miranda is an affirmation of rights that exist, although the purpose is not technically admissability, it is to make sure the defendants knows of his or her rights,. The penalty for failure to Mirandize a witness can be that the statements are not then admissible (as you note) There are however exceptions like the public safety exception and an "unMirandized" statement can still be used againt a defendant in certains instances.  However, it also works the other way. For example, many have heard the expression "fruit of the poisoned tree," which means, in short, that police cannot use an "unMirandized" statement to obtain other evidence.

Obviously, the Professor is right about counsel.  Anyone who watches "the First 48" can see the police officers sprint out of the interrogation room as soon as the defendant "lawyers up' lol

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2769
Online
#249 : April 30, 2013, 09:30:36 PM

As law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained in the Los Angeles Times last week, the Obama DOJ was already abusing the "public safety" exception by using it to delay Miranda warnings for hours, long after virtually every public official expressly said that there were no more threats to the public safety. As he put it: "this exception does not apply here because there was no emergency threat facing law enforcement."

"The day he was captured they may have a had a reasonable basis, but as time passes the argument dissipates. "

No, you have it backwards, In fact,  the opposite.

 ;)

Chemerinsky  is the author of one of the most widely-used legal textbooks in America and the concept he is discussing (the dissipating exception) should be familiar to any first year law student. Now Durango, who was that you were quoting in italics?  Who was that you were saying was wrong? 

lol

Chemerinsky's comments, reflect quite clearly, precisely what I've statied in nearly every post I've made in this thread. But you likely hadn't noticed as you were too busy spouting off  about the expanded powers of government while making excuses and trying rationalize the withholding of the rights of an American citizen. I would suggest you stop trying to seek validation from me, grow a spine, and stand up for what any first year law student would recognize as a basic right violation under well established law..


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#250 : April 30, 2013, 09:48:51 PM

As law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained in the Los Angeles Times last week, the Obama DOJ was already abusing the "public safety" exception by using it to delay Miranda warnings for hours, long after virtually every public official expressly said that there were no more threats to the public safety. As he put it: "this exception does not apply here because there was no emergency threat facing law enforcement."

"The day he was captured they may have a had a reasonable basis, but as time passes the argument dissipates. "

No, you have it backwards, In fact,  the opposite.

 ;)

Chemerinsky  is the author of one of the most widely-used legal textbooks in America and the concept he is discussing (the dissipating exception) should be familiar to any first year law student. Now Durango, who was that you were quoting in italics?  Who was that you were saying was wrong? 

lol

Chemerinsky's comments, reflect quite clearly, precisely what I've statied in nearly every post I've made in this thread. But you likely hadn't noticed as you were too busy spouting off  about the expanded powers of government while making excuses and trying rationalize the withholding of the rights of an American citizen. I would suggest you stop trying to seek validation from me, grow a spine, and stand up for what any first year law student would recognize as a basic right violation under well established law..

that doesn't even make sense.  Maybe you are struggling with a temporary lack of "capacity"  lol

"The day he was captured they may have a had a reasonable basis, but as time passes the argument dissipates. "

No, you have it backwards, In fact,  the opposite.

The night he was apprehended he was carted out on a stretcher incapacitated. Even if he had been read his Miranda a that moment it would likely have been rendered inadmissible due to his
diminished capacity.


Proof it don't take smarts to be a troll . .  :-[

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2769
Online
#251 : April 30, 2013, 09:58:49 PM

Vince, you may know the answer to this. Isn't the Miranda thing not that big of a deal anyway? Reading someone's Miranda rights doesn't give them the rights. They already have those rights per the Constitution. The only purpose of the Miranda process is ensure that any information given by the suspect can be lawfully admissible in court, right?

You're pretty damn cavalier regarding the rights of American citizens. I'm noticing a discomforting pattern here.

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2769
Online
#252 : April 30, 2013, 10:07:01 PM

As law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained in the Los Angeles Times last week, the Obama DOJ was already abusing the "public safety" exception by using it to delay Miranda warnings for hours, long after virtually every public official expressly said that there were no more threats to the public safety. As he put it: "this exception does not apply here because there was no emergency threat facing law enforcement."

"The day he was captured they may have a had a reasonable basis, but as time passes the argument dissipates. "

No, you have it backwards, In fact,  the opposite.

 ;)

Chemerinsky  is the author of one of the most widely-used legal textbooks in America and the concept he is discussing (the dissipating exception) should be familiar to any first year law student. Now Durango, who was that you were quoting in italics?  Who was that you were saying was wrong? 

lol

Chemerinsky's comments, reflect quite clearly, precisely what I've statied in nearly every post I've made in this thread. But you likely hadn't noticed as you were too busy spouting off  about the expanded powers of government while making excuses and trying rationalize the withholding of the rights of an American citizen. I would suggest you stop trying to seek validation from me, grow a spine, and stand up for what any first year law student would recognize as a basic right violation under well established law..

that doesn't even make sense.  Maybe you are struggling with a temporary lack of "capacity"  lol

"The day he was captured they may have a had a reasonable basis, but as time passes the argument dissipates. "

No, you have it backwards, In fact,  the opposite.

The night he was apprehended he was carted out on a stretcher incapacitated. Even if he had been read his Miranda a that moment it would likely have been rendered inadmissible due to his
diminished capacity.

Proof it don't take smarts to be a troll . .  :-[

Even by your standards that's incredibly weak....."lol"

"When you sleep
I will creep
Into your thoughts
Like a bad debt
That you can't pay
Take the easy way
And give in"

Jump, puppet, jump!

"lol"
: April 30, 2013, 10:10:36 PM Durango 95

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2769
Online
#253 : April 30, 2013, 10:54:07 PM

For those interested, I've posted the entire Glenn Greenwald interview. I realize for a few of you that a 25 minute interview stretches well beyond the scope of your attention span. But, for the rest of those that possess the mental stamina you might find it informative. CBW you seem to be interested in the subject, I hope you can find the time and I welcome any feedback from all relating to the content of the interview.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19565
Offline
#254 : May 01, 2013, 09:14:41 AM

The troll's retort: I am RESPONDING to your comment because you are my puppet - lol.  Talk about diminished capacity. ...


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center
Page: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 28
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Boston marathon terrorist attack? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools