Miranda rights or no Miranda rights?

[jpccusa]

From Rachel Maddow's blog

After his arrest for allegedly trying to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, Faisal Shahzad was questioned immediately and he talked. He was then read his Miranda rights -- and he kept talking. Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, talked and he talked and talked and talked. He reportedly confessed to receiving bomb-making training in Waziristan in Pakistan, and also to trying to blow up an SUV in Times Square on Saturday and to having a gun in his car.

All of that information can now be used in Shahzad's prosecution, and yet the fact that he was read his Miranda rights at all has drawn outrage from conservatives like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Lieberman floated the idea of automatically stripping American citizenship from anyone chooses to choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations.

But Miranda rights don't depend on American citizenship. If you're arrested in America, you're told about your right to remain silent and seek an attorney because you're in America.

On the show Tuesday, Nation editor Chris Hayes argued that many conservatives don't like Miranda rights in the first place. Hayes pointed out what amounts to circular reason. "This argument, the zombie argument, that Miranda only applies to citizens, refuses to die," he said. "And now, we're seeing that they didn't even take that seriously to begin with because now that that comes up here, they want to get rid of the citizenship."

Your thoughts?

 

[mike17l]

Citizen/terrorist - In my opinion - You can be one or the other, but you cannot be both.

Personally I think people caught in the act of killing citizens should have no rights. The guy that killed those people at Fort Hood, should never have seen the light of day out side of Fort Hood.

 

[tyflier]

Here's the problem...you are Mirandized when you are charged...not when you are convicted. Stripping a suspected terrorist of their basic rights is absolutely unConstitutional. These individuals have been charged, but not convicted. Why should they be punished and treated as criminals before there is any judicial proof that they are guilty?

Sounds to me like McCain. Lieberman, and the other DC whackos are intent on making this a communist state where nobody has any rights unless they decide we deserve them.

But watch out for Healthcare Reform! That's Socialism!! :roflmao::awcrap:

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

Citizen/terrorist - In my opinion - You can be one or the other, but you cannot be both.

Sorry, but you can definitely be both. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If you're a citizen, even accused of terrorism, you have the right to be afforded all rights and protections in the judicial system.

This man was a US citizen, and he deserves and has the right to a lawyer, right to remain silent, etc. Just because he's accused of terrorism doesn't make him a terrorist until he's proven to be one in a court of law.

Personally I think people caught in the act of killing citizens should have no rights. The guy that killed those people at Fort Hood, should never have seen the light of day out side of Fort Hood.

Good thing for us the writers of the Constitution and the courts disagree with you.

 

[tyflier]

Sorry, but you can definitely be both. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If you're a citizen, even accused of terrorism, you have the right to be afforded all rights and protections in the judicial system.

This man was a US citizen, and he deserves and has the right to a lawyer, right to remain silent, etc. Just because he's accused of terrorism doesn't make him a terrorist until he's proven to be one in a court of law.



Good thing for us the writers of the Constitution and the courts disagree with you.

Exactly! Contrary to what some of these conservatives would like to see, there is still such a thing as "Innocent until PROVEN guilty", in this country, and stripping away rights based on acusations, rather than convictions, is neo-fascism at it's finest. It's punishment based on who you are, not what you did, and that simply cannot happen in this country. Ever.

 

[Cornsnake124]

Citizen/terrorist - In my opinion - You can be one or the other, but you cannot be both.

Personally I think people caught in the act of killing citizens should have no rights. The guy that killed those people at Fort Hood, should never have seen the light of day out side of Fort Hood.

I agree with you, but if we are going souly by the constitution, he has miranda rights because he is technically a citizen.

Here's the problem...you are Mirandized when you are charged...not when you are convicted. Stripping a suspected terrorist of their basic rights is absolutely unConstitutional

As rare as it is, i agree with you on that one. But if they are not a citizen of the United States of America, they should have no rights at all, only under the geneva convention if they are an enemy combatant for a different country, which he is not. so geneva rights do not apply.

Sounds to me like McCain. Lieberman, and the other DC whackos are intent on making this a communist state where nobody has any rights unless they decide we deserve them.

But watch out for Healthcare Reform! That's Socialism!!

Sorry if its off topic and very frank, but i think your talking about the immigration in Arizona. BUT READ THE BILL!!!!!! in the bill, it says that officers are not allowed to stop someone and ask for papers unless there is some other reason to pull them over, IE speeding, etc..

And people are wining about them having to carry their papers with them. However, a drivers license is a medium of registration . you have to be a citizen to get a license....

If you're a citizen, even accused of terrorism, you have the right to be afforded all rights and protections in the judicial system.

The if your a citizen is the crucial part of this post. If they are not a citizen, all constitutional rights disappear.

Exactly! Contrary to what some of these conservatives would like to see, there is still such a thing as "Innocent until PROVEN guilty", in this country, and stripping away rights based on acusations, rather than convictions, is neo-fascism at it's finest. It's punishment based on who you are, not what you did, and that simply cannot happen in this country. Ever.

You just listed a basic social conservative ideal...... Hence, i reded, bolded, and re-fonted your conservative part... But yes, I agree with you again... (twice in one thread? THE WORLD MUST BE COMING TO AN END!!!!!!) :eek1: :blowhead:

 

[tyflier]

I agree with you, but if we are going souly by the constitution, he has miranda rights because he is technically a citizen.

Citizenship doesn't matter with Miranda Rights. If a tourist from Canada or Brazil or anywhere else is arrested in this country, they are Mirandized, as part of the Due Process of our Judicial System. Miranda Rights aren't for US Citizens, they are for suspected criminals on American Soil. Big difference there...

As rare as it is, i agree with you on that one. But if they are not a citizen of the United States of America, they should have no rights at all, only under the geneva convention if they are an enemy combatant for a different country, which he is not. so geneva rights do not apply.

So...in America, you are only guaranteed rights when you are citizen? Following that logic, anyone visiting the country or staying on a work visa would not be required to obey our Constitution or laws. That doesn't make any sense at all.

We expect visitors and tourists to pay sales tax, use tax, and other taxes into OUR government while they are here. We expect migrant workers to pay income tax, sales tax, and transient taxes to OUR government while they are here.

It's a little hypocritical to say, "You have to pay our taxes while in this country, but you do not recieve our Civil Rights Protections". Again...that makes no sense...

Sorry if its off topic and very frank, but i think your talking about the immigration in Arizona. BUT READ THE BILL!!!!!! in the bill, it says that officers are not allowed to stop someone and ask for papers unless there is some other reason to pull them over, IE speeding, etc..

Actually, I wasn't referring to the AZ Bill at all. I was specifically referring to THIS situation, regarding ONLY Mirandizing suspected terrorists.

But since you brought it up...The bill says ONLY that they need "reasonable suspicion or cause" to check for papers. That means that cops are perfectly within their job description to follow around a car full of Hispanics, and wait for them to make a right turn without a turn signal to check their papers. This does not, in any way, shape, or form, limit the amount of Racial Profiling that will occur, nor does it do anything to protect individuals from racially-biased persecution by law enforcement.

[thick Nazi accent]"Ve need to zee your papers. You are not velcome here!"[/Nazi accent]

And people are wining about them having to carry their papers with them. However, a drivers license is a medium of registration . you have to be a citizen to get a license....

Seems very Owellian in nature to require US Citizens to carry documentation that proves they are citizens because of the color of their skin. If they are going to require Hispanics to carry citizenship papers, than it should be a requirement of ALL citizens, otherwise it is Racial Discrimination...which is unConstitutional.

Think of the Gestapo knocking down doors and requiring papers to prove a family was not Jewish or Polish during WWII. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

And you absolutely do NOT need to be a citizen to have a license. Just very inaccurate information, there...

The if your a citizen is the crucial part of this post. If they are not a citizen, all constitutional rights disappear.

Wrong. The US government is required to follow the rights granted by the constitution regardless of YOUR status or citizenship. Police Officers are required to be constitutional and protect Civil Rights, regardless of who I am or where I come from. Afterall...the police and judges are citizens. Does the Constitution not apply to them when dealing with non-citizens? Again...that just makes no sense...

You just listed a basic social conservative ideal...... Hence, i reded, bolded, and re-fonted your conservative part... But yes, I agree with you again... (twice in one thread? THE WORLD MUST BE COMING TO AN END!!!!!!) :eek1: :blowhead:

Well, if you agree with me, you either agree that these social conservatives are trying to make this a neo-fascist government, or you misunderstood what I said...

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

The if your a citizen is the crucial part of this post. If they are not a citizen, all constitutional rights disappear.

Actually the constitution makes no mention of having to be a citizen for these rights to apply. IIRC, the only specific mention of citizenship is with regards to the Presidency.

Anyone in the US that's arrested in the US or even by US forces abroad should have full access to our judicial system IMO. That's a nasty precedent to set if you are afforded no rights if you're arrested here but aren't a citizen.

Would you be OK with an American being arrested in France and given no rights and just locked up? What if they got the wrong person? What if we start doing that and get the wrong person. But we may never know if they have no rights and never get a lawyer or a fair trial.

 

[vetusvates]

I am all for any citizen and/or terrorist in the U.S.,...caught with a backpack, car, or Ryder truck, of enough explosives to level a city block or four,...being Mirandized in the american/english language.
I want nothing to stand in the way of subsequent entitlement to our criminal justice system teasing their hair with the electric chair, getting gassed with class, or being wheedled to a cot and the needle.

 

[tsst]

... DC whackos are intent on making this a communist state where nobody has any rights unless they decide we deserve them.

But watch out for Healthcare Reform! That's Socialism!! :roflmao::awcrap:

Agreed on both! :sidestep:

 

[susang]

From Rachel Maddow's blog



Your thoughts?

Couldn't you have just gone to weather thread :roflmao:
Well I had many thoughts about this guy, but since he plead guilty to everything, ehh.
Conspiracy theory, since the bomb was so poorly constructed with such obvious clues. Does anyone think this was a practice run? Actaully at first I thought it was a diversion, lets get everyone to look here while we do the real stuff over there. Either of which could be true.

 

[jpccusa]

Couldn't you have just gone to weather thread :roflmao:

I can't actively participate in weather threads. It is always sunny here, sometimes sunny and windy, but that's about it. :boring:

 

[Outcast]

I don't listen or read anything Rachel Maddow has to say. Every thing I have ever heard her say in the past just made me want to break someones legs.

 

[jpccusa]

I don't listen or read anything Rachel Maddow has to say. Every thing I have ever heard her say in the past just made me want to break someones legs.

Let me guess - you listen and read Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. :sidestep:

 

[vetusvates]

I think he means any "extreme"...is well...extreme.

I'm glad to know (we) liberals have, in Rachel Maddow, our own mirror image of Ann Coulter (Rush Limbaugh in a skirt, lipstick, and eye shadow). But chicken little is chicken little...whether he/she is a Rhode Island Red or Foghorn Leghorn. The sky is really not falling.

 

[jpccusa]

I sometimes hear and read Rush and Glenn just for the laughs, while thinking "what in the world?!?!"
I often hear and read Rachel's "exaggerated perspectives" which also make me laugh (for different reasons).

On a side note, I really didn't know she was considered extreme, perhaps because I mostly agree with her. :shrugs:

 

[Outcast]

I really don't listen to any of the Elitists, Left or Right. They all make me want to break someones legs.

Rush/ O'Reily, Because they don't think their opinions are the only ones that have any weight to them.

Maddow and other far lefties, Because all I hear from them is regurgitated Liberal BS.

I have no problem with your common every day Democrat, in fact I always hung out with the college dems my first semester at South Eastern Louisiana University, because I enjoyed their company more than my fellow College Republicans...

I am not really sure what party I would fall under even though i am registered Republican. I vote for who I agree with more. Left or right, Be it I have only been able to Vote in 2 presidential elections and voted republican both times, I feel that when I see someone I like, I will vote for him/her, no matter what party....

I just do not like the Extremists on both sides, they make both parties look like cry baby's.

 

[susang]

Let me guess - you listen and read Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. :sidestep:

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao: Don't you just love Glenn Beck, I know I hang on every word.

 

[tsst]

...I often hear and read Rachel's "exaggerated perspectives" which also make me laugh (for different reasons).

On a side note, I really didn't know she was considered extreme, perhaps because I mostly agree with her. :shrugs:

Really?!?! Not trying to be antagonistic just surprised. Maddow and Olberman are the liberal alter egos of Rush. They are just as extreme but to the far far left instead of right. :grin01:

 

[tyflier]

Really?!?! Not trying to be antagonistic just surprised. Maddow and Olberman are the liberal alter egos of Rush. They are just as extreme but to the far far left instead of right. :grin01:

See...we CAN agree on some things...

Eric, I think you nailed it. Read these MF'ers their rights, give them a lawyer, give them a fair trial, and give them every benefit of our judicial system. Only in this way, can we be assured that full justice and penalties will be carried out without interruption or interferance if they are found guilty. Don't give these idiots ANY excuses to claim "My rights were violated! Boo-Hoo!"

But saying that someone loses their rights upon arrest is really unConstitutional. There is supposed to be Innocence until Proof of Guilt in this country, and that stands true regardless of whether or not you are a citizen, immigrant, or just passing through...

And unfortunately...getting arrested does NOT prove guilt. Not now, not in the past, and hopefully...not ever in this country. That is NOT what this country was founded on and not what we are supposed to stand for.