Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sleipnir

Miranda Right + Bomber

Recommended Posts

What I don't understand is why is the Miranda Right being revoked for the bomber? I thought the only exception in which the Miranda Right can be revoke would be if there was a continual threat. Yet the officials last night did say the hunt is over, doesn't that mean the threat is over?

I guess I would be committing a slippery-slope fallacy in suggest where you draw the line to revoke these things...

Edit: It not as if he travelled from Russia to commit these crimes, he is an American citizen after all.

Edited by Sleipnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

What I don't understand is why is the Miranda Right being revoked for the bomber? I thought the only exception in which the Miranda Right can be revoke would be if there was a continual threat. Yet the officials last night did say the hunt is over, doesn't that mean the threat is over?

No, that doesn't mean the threat of more bombs is over; ie: the possibility of more bombs being hidden around Boston poses an "imminent" threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why is the Miranda Right being revoked for the bomber? I thought the only exception in which the Miranda Right can be revoke would be if there was a continual threat. Yet the officials last night did say the hunt is over, doesn't that mean the threat is over?

No, the War on Terror is likely with us forever. There will be no armistice day or surrender. It can't be won and there isn't anyone who can be sued for peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that doesn't mean the threat of more bombs is over; ie: the possibility of more bombs being hidden around Boston poses an "imminent" threat.

Yeah I supposed that would justify revoking the Miranda's right...

I heard on the news that the suspect sustain injuries to his throat and he may not be able to speak again. I wonder how revoking the Miranda Right would work with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the War on Terror is likely with us forever. There will be no armistice day or surrender. It can't be won and there isn't anyone who can be sued for peace.

Forever is a very long time. 250 years ago or so we had Spain, France, Britain and innumerable first nations engaging in seemingly interminable warfare in North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why is the Miranda Right being revoked for the bomber? I thought the only exception in which the Miranda Right can be revoke would be if there was a continual threat. Yet the officials last night did say the hunt is over, doesn't that mean the threat is over?

I guess I would be committing a slippery-slope fallacy in suggest where you draw the line to revoke these things...

Edit: It not as if he travelled from Russia to commit these crimes, he is an American citizen after all.

You don't know what you are talking about. Reading you your Miranda Rights is to inform you that basically anything you say can be used against you in court and that for questioning and such you have a right to have a lawyer present. When you aren't given your Miranda the things you say can't be used. In this case though the police don't need him to talk. They have him on video dropping the bomb. The case is already made so they are going to question him with out a lawyer and not present any of that in court. It isn't that they are not reading him his Miranda Rights its that the police and FBI don't intend to use anything they get out of him in court anyway. This case is made now its about getting the information they need out of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the point you were trying to make M-Hard. I am not quite sure hat reference to the past was making.

You referred to a time when people in the name of Christianity entered a new continent and in the name of Christ engaged in mass murder and rape and all kinds of other lovely behaviours against not just natives but their own people in the name of God. Did it end? Are you suggesting this planet has undergone a sudden time period of peace without religious and other violence? Its gone on continuously throughout history and if anything backs up the original poster's point.

I would side with the poster's prediction violence will be around forever given history shows humans have engaged in violence against each other and our environment from the get go. Our violent behaviour patterns continues mutate in expression but the terror and violence remains with us. Are you suggesting its abaiting?

I don't doubt peace has evolved in some sttaes but I and most historians would argue the planet has never been globally at peace and that democratic nations may be free of the same kind of political terrorism as conflicted nations but that political terrorism has never ended and has always continued in every era of history.

Forever is a very long time. 250 years ago or so we had Spain, France, Britain and innumerable first nations engaging in seemingly interminable warfare in North America.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know what you are talking about. Reading you your Miranda Rights is to inform you that basically anything you say can be used against you in court and that for questioning and such you have a right to have a lawyer present. When you aren't given your Miranda the things you say can't be used. In this case though the police don't need him to talk. They have him on video dropping the bomb. The case is already made so they are going to question him with out a lawyer and not present any of that in court. It isn't that they are not reading him his Miranda Rights its that the police and FBI don't intend to use anything they get out of him in court anyway. This case is made now its about getting the information they need out of him.

Actually he does have a valid legal point says this law prof not that I know anything. May I kindly point out If you rely solely on circumstantial and eye witness evidence you run the risk that an arguement of reasonable doubt can be raised or even an insanity plea.

This is why with even the most slam dunk of cases (presumptive evidence is what we like to call it) its always preferable the prosecutor has a confession or at least statements from the accused that can be used in court.

However I would not be surprised if a legal arguement is made that there was never reasonable opportunity to offer the rights because the violent actions of the accused prevented it from being communicated in a timely manner. That is an arguement that has been made successfully in the past. Kind of hard to offer the miranda when you have grenades being thrown at you or you are being shot at. Its not to conducive to conversation if you know what I mean.

In this case however I would suggest the accused if he does recover my very well want to make political statements at the appropriate time and want to incriminate himself and even plead guilty. The guilty conviction os often used by terrorists as a sign of martyrdom, vindication and confirmation that what they did was right and serves as call out to other terrorists to carry on.

I

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually he does have a valid legal point says this law prof not that I know anything. May I kindly point out If you rely solely on circumstantial and eye witness evidence you run the risk that an arguement of reasonable doubt can be raised or even an insanity plea.

This is why with even the most slam dunk of cases (presumptive evidence is what we like to call it) its always preferable the prosecutor has a confession or at least statements from the accused that can be used in court.

However I would not be surprised if a legal arguement is made that there was never reasonable opportunity to offer the rights because the violent actions of the accused prevented it from being communicated in a timely manner. That is an arguement that has been made successfully in the past. Kind of hard to offer the miranda when you have grenades being thrown at you or you are being shot at. Its not to conducive to conversation if you know what I mean.

In this case however I would suggest the accused if he does recover my very well want to make political statements at the appropriate time and want to incriminate himself and even plead guilty. The guilty conviction os often used by terrorists as a sign of martyrdom, vindication and confirmation that what they did was right and serves as call out to other terrorists to carry on.

I

They have him on camera placing the bomb next to a kid and in the frame running away as the bomb goes off. Its open and shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why is the Miranda Right being revoked for the bomber? I thought the only exception in which the Miranda Right can be revoke would be if there was a continual threat. Yet the officials last night did say the hunt is over, doesn't that mean the threat is over?

There are two answers to this question.

The first is the publicized one, which is the "public safety" exception to Miranda that the U.S. Supreme Court ("SCOTUS") has carved out. It should be self-explanatory.

The second is a fundamental misunderstanding of Miranda's contours and aims. The warnings are required only if the police seek to use a confession as evidence, or evidence gathered from confessed information. "Mirandizing" a suspect allows the use of a subsequent confession. If a confession is not needed to convict, Miranda has no role. I strongly suspect that the U.S. has other evidence sufficient to convict. I personally have no problem if that creep is tortured if it will save other lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two answers to this question.

The first is the publicized one, which is the "public safety" exception to Miranda that the U.S. Supreme Court ("SCOTUS") has carved out. It should be self-explanatory.

The second is a fundamental misunderstanding of Miranda's contours and aims. The warnings are required only if the police seek to use a confession as evidence, or evidence gathered from confessed information. "Mirandizing" a suspect allows the use of a subsequent confession. If a confession is not needed to convict, Miranda has no role. I strongly suspect that the U.S. has other evidence sufficient to convict. I personally have no problem if that creep is tortured if it will save other lives.

Really? You have no problem with the government torturing its own citizens, as long as they deem it "necessary" for others' "safety"? Land of the free....ish.

Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, on the radio, Sam Donaldson was talking about this and he said the Russian and the FBI were working together and that Russia gave all the information about the older one about a year ago and that the FBI was keeping tabs on him and that Russia said that the FBI didn't do its job because the two bombers were able to carry out their agenda. So now. Russia and the FBI are blaming the other for allowing the bombing to happen. So, did the FBI, let it happen, or are they not capable of doing their job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the Miranda right even exist?

The Miranda rights have a long and somewhat honorable history. In 1914, the Federal Courts applied the "exclusionary rule" to Federal prosecutions, so that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in a federal prosecution. The FBI and other federal authorities developed their own version of "Miranda-style" warnings.

During the late 1950's, the U.S. Supreme Court ("SCOTUS")decided a case called Mapp v. Ohio which required state courts to exclude illegally gathered evidence. In 1963 in a widely approved decision, Gideon v. Wainwright SCOTUS provided that any defendant requesting an attorney must be provided one at public expense if they cannot afford counsel and, most crucially, that the moment a defendant requested an attorney any confessions elicited after a request for counsel were inadmissible. Effectively such a request terminated questioning. Miranda simply spelled out a requirement that any defendant must be advised of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The failure to advise of those rights prevents the prosecution introducing any confessions elicited after the police officer was responsible to give a Miranda warning.

The Miranda decision proved surprisingly and in my view unnecessarily unpopular. Most defendants don't know how to "shut up" so in my view the Miranda decision assists the police.

Really? You have no problem with the government torturing its own citizens, as long as they deem it "necessary" for others' "safety"? Land of the free....ish.

Notwithstanding what I said above, preservation of life and safety must trump other considerations. I am not advocating a free ride for police torture. But there are exceptions. Boston should have been one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, on the radio, Sam Donaldson was talking about this and he said the Russian and the FBI were working together and that Russia gave all the information about the older one about a year ago and that the FBI was keeping tabs on him and that Russia said that the FBI didn't do its job because the two bombers were able to carry out their agenda. So now. Russia and the FBI are blaming the other for allowing the bombing to happen. So, did the FBI, let it happen, or are they not capable of doing their job?

I agree. To quote Led Zeppelin in Stairway to Heaven, "it makes you wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

Today, on the radio, Sam Donaldson was talking about this and he said the Russian and the FBI were working together and that Russia gave all the information about the older one about a year ago and that the FBI was keeping tabs on him and that Russia said that the FBI didn't do its job because the two bombers were able to carry out their agenda. So now. Russia and the FBI are blaming the other for allowing the bombing to happen. So, did the FBI, let it happen, or are they not capable of doing their job?

Really? It has to be one or the other? The FBI either "let it happen" or "are not capable of doing their job??"

I have to wonder about how many 'tips' the FBI gets about "radicalized" citizens/residents in a country of 312+ million people - and what exactly they are supposed to do after they conduct an investigation and don't find anything. Should we just throw everyone who anyone has claimed might be radicalized in jail? Yeah, that wouldn't get any criticism at all. :rolleyes: So should we just assume that because there was one such act of terrorism in the past how many years, as many were thwarted, that the FBI is not capable of doing its job? Sure, that sounds just as reasonable. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A classic case of hindsight. Easy to second guess the police of course. They are damned if they do damned if they don't with we armchair critics.

Interestingly the FBI asked the RCMP to sit a bit longer on the train blow up plan in Toronto to see if they could arrest even more suspects and the RCMP got ansy and said no way we can't wait longer. Some will criticize the RCMP for moving in too fast on terrorists and preempting capturing even more in the surveillance others will say the opposite. The FBI is taking some heat for that too.

Easy to criticize counter terrorism activities but in this case the FBI acted within the bounds of democracy. I commend their work. They acted as best they could without violating this guys rights. I am not about to knee jerk react after the fact. Too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI should take some heat for "sitting on" information. Evidently the Russians gave them all the intel they needed on the Boston bombers and the FBI decided to wait it out. If that's true, then the FBI is as much to blame for not doing their job and preventing this from happening. For the record, I don't think it's that cut and dry. They probably didn't have enough evidence to convict, so they had no choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI should take some heat for "sitting on" information. Evidently the Russians gave them all the intel they needed on the Boston bombers and the FBI decided to wait it out. If that's true, then the FBI is as much to blame for not doing their job and preventing this from happening. For the record, I don't think it's that cut and dry. They probably didn't have enough evidence to convict, so they had no choice.

Some reports are also showing the CIA knew who they were. At the same time telling the RCMP and CSIS, to hold off detaining the VIA Rail suspects.

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/national/RCMP+held+terror+plot+arrests+help+report+says/8287742/story.html

Canadian authorities had considered moving in on the two men two weeks ago, but the FBI asked them to hold off so the U.S. could complete its end of the investigation, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI should take some heat for "sitting on" information. Evidently the Russians gave them all the intel they needed on the Boston bombers and the FBI decided to wait it out. If that's true, then the FBI is as much to blame for not doing their job and preventing this from happening. For the record, I don't think it's that cut and dry. They probably didn't have enough evidence to convict, so they had no choice.

Could any of this be the reason for Craft Int'l being on the scene prior to the bombs being set off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could any of this be the reason for Craft Int'l being on the scene prior to the bombs being set off?

They were there to oversee the drills going on that day in my view. There was mention of the drills early on in the reports but since seemed to have disappeared.

Craft was definitely there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were there to oversee the drills going on that day in my view. There was mention of the drills early on in the reports but since seemed to have disappeared.

Craft was definitely there.

Ah yes, I do recall them saying they were doing drills.

No wonder so many conspiracies spring up. That and well......people are idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...