Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FirmhandKY -> Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 5:23:23 PM)


Update Miranda?

... said that Congress should “give serious consideration” to updating the Miranda warning which requires law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their rights – including the right to remain silent.


In an interview on “This Week,” ... [a justice department official] ... said that the U.S. needs to exam whether the current rules regarding Miranda warnings give law enforcement agents the “necessary flexibility” when dealing with terrorism cases.

“If we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing, in a public safety context, with this new threat,” ... [a justice department official]  said, “I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception” of Miranda warnings, which allows law enforcement agents to ask suspects about impending threats before reading them their rights.


If I had known that he was supporting such a thing then, I would have been outraged!  I would have joined my liberal brethren and "sistren" on the protest path!

I'd be joining with Owner59, and rulemylife for his impeachment!

oh, wait ... did I say "Bush"?

Firm

[:D][8D]




jlf1961 -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:03:08 PM)

Considering how many Republicans are complaining about terrorist suspects being read their rights, are you really surprised?



thompsonx -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:09:58 PM)

And yet you tell us constantly how the two parties are different and stand for different things.
From where I stand it looks like they all shit in the same bucket.



Aylee -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:14:42 PM)

Ya know, Charles Krauthammer, had an article about that this week. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050605022.html 




thompsonx -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:34:23 PM)

It would appear that the rule of law is just for those who believe in the rule of law.
For the rest the rule of expediency seems to be the call of the day.



DarkSteven -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:39:22 PM)

Stupid question - why is this a big deal?  It takes two minutes.  Is the premise that they don't deserve to know what their rights are?



Real0ne -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:40:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

And yet you tell us constantly how the two parties are different and stand for different things.
From where I stand it looks like they all shit in the same bucket.


I have been preaching that for the last 30 years.

and you know what?  you are bang on target.



Real0ne -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:44:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Stupid question - why is this a big deal?  It takes two minutes.  Is the premise that they don't deserve to know what their rights are?


Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
  Landmark case whereby the Supreme Court noted that rights must be protected and that defendants must be provided warning and notice of rights before confessions or testimonies can be taken. The Supreme Court penned the famous words,


“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Thats the part they want to destroy^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

its one of many that the evil sovereigns use to keep government thugs in check.







Aylee -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 6:59:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Stupid question - why is this a big deal?  It takes two minutes.  Is the premise that they don't deserve to know what their rights are?


The ticking-time-bomb scenario. 

You see, without the public safety exception in play, any answers that you recieve to questions BEFORE the miranda warning are not admissable in court. 

So. . . if there is a ticking time bomb, and the guy is talking about it, and you read him is miranda rights, what if he does in fact stop talking?  Just like the underwear bomber did for five weeks. 

So the public safety exception ("We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the [Miranda] rule." ~ Quarles case) needs to be expanded to include terrorist plots. 



servantforuse -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:01:34 PM)

Explain to me why a terrorist from another country has the same 'rights' as a citizen of the United States.



Aylee -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:04:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Explain to me why a terrorist from another country has the same 'rights' as a citizen of the United States.


Because the current administration is using a civilian law enforcement model for the interrogations as opposed to putting them in military custody as unlawful combatants.  That is how I understand it. 



Dubbelganger -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:05:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Explain to me why a terrorist from another country has the same 'rights' as a citizen of the United States.

International treaties to which the US is a signatory.



Real0ne -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:09:19 PM)

where does it say the constitution is limited to only citizens et al?

another misunderstanding about its purpose



rulemylife -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:10:27 PM)

Ohhhhhhhhhhh Firmy, aren't you the sly one?

You just done pulled the wool over us liberals eyes.

I oppose Holder's idea the same as I opposed the Bush administration's attempts at what amounts to the same thing.

Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such.

But you cannot say one criminal activity should be treated differently under the law.

All that does is degrade the entire legal system and the principles this country supposedly stands for.   



pahunkboy -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:13:00 PM)

Who is Maryanna?



Real0ne -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:16:07 PM)



WTF is a terrorist?


Criminal / Terrorist Threat Criminal Defense
The willful threatening to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety. CPC 422 Under this definition, you could be charged with Criminal Threats/Terrorist Threats if you threaten to kill or injure another. Criminal Threats/Terrorist Threats may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. The maximum punishment for a misdemeanor is one-year in jail. Felony Criminal Threats/Terrorist Threats however is punishable by imprisonment for 16 months, two years, or three years in prison. A first time offender however will be granted probation if he or she admits guilt at an early stage of the proceedings. If either you or a loved one is being investigated or is accused of criminal threats or terrorist threats, you need an experienced attorney on your side to help you to avoid jail time. For a free telephonic consultation and evaluation of your case, please contact us at




So if fear is a criminal act then how about when the guv causes panic over 911 eh?  The mainstream media reporting terrorists eh?  causing fear in the public?

whats wrong with this picture.

Fear is now a crime hence who is more guilty than the guv and news media



servantforuse -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:30:06 PM)

Name one other country that will read your miranda rights to you when you get arrested on their soil.



Dubbelganger -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 7:55:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Name one other country that will read your miranda rights to you when you get arrested on their soil.

I'm guessing you mean the "right to silence" because, as any idiot knows, Miranda was a US court case.

There are several: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence



Jeffff -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 8:00:40 PM)

Servant can't be bothered with facts. They conflict with his world view and destroy all his happiness.



Real0ne -> RE: Bush DoJ Wanted to "Update" Miranda Rights Warning ... (5/9/2010 8:10:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Name one other country that will read your miranda rights to you when you get arrested on their soil.



I personally dont need them because I recite them to the cop LOL

but you all do.

I know plenty of citings to make a case as miranda but nothing tops miranda.  one of the single best ruilings ever made in this country.





Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125