• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Miranda rights or no Miranda rights?

tyflier said:
... That is NOT what this country was founded on and not what we are supposed to stand for.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately both parties have done a fine job of altering the country far away from what it was founded on!
 
Having been in the situation where someone has tried to kill my buddies and I with Home made bombs and conventional weapons... I would have shot him on sight, No trial, Nothing. Dead and gone. Let me be in trouble in this "Politically Correct" society, He was trying to kill innocent people, He admitted to it, so give him what he wants. Death, right then and there.

I have had enough of these people coming to my country and trying to kill my people. We would not have gone over seas had that not have happened on 9/11.
 
tyflier said:
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!"

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.
Click to expand...

Amen brother!
 
Outcast said:
Having been in the situation where someone has tried to kill my buddies and I with Home made bombs and conventional weapons... I would have shot him on sight, No trial, Nothing. Dead and gone. Let me be in trouble in this "Politically Correct" society, He was trying to kill innocent people, He admitted to it, so give him what he wants. Death, right then and there.

I have had enough of these people coming to my country and trying to kill my people. We would not have gone over seas had that not have happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I'm all for the defense of oneself, one's family, and one's property. I am NOT, however, a supporter of vigilante justice. The last thing we need is to give anyone the idea that it is OK to "shoot on sight" whenever we think someone is doing something that might be terrorist in nature.

This is especially true in the post-9/11, Bush-induced hate-mongering, justified-racist society we have seen develope over the last 9 years...
 
I for one do not hate the afghani people, or any Muslim people for that matter. What I hate is that you think that all of the ignorant people out there hate mongering is Bush's fault... That is some far left thinking my friend... If I recall correctly, alot of Dem's voted to go over there too in retaliation for what happened. It is not all W's fault that people choose to hate a whole religious group because of what a small portion of that group did, or a whole racial group because of what the terrorists looked like.
I met many respectable natives in Afghanistan. Most of whom were happy that we were there, freeing them from the reign of the Taliban and Al Queda. I have shook their hands and payed close attention to their broken english, I have even tried to speak with them in their native tounge. They have a very old and very interesting culture. I am saddened that the US has become so angry towards everyone over there.

But, When it comes to terrorism, I was trained to see signs. and this guy trying to blow his car up and kill people is a big sign. I have been wary of almost everyone since I have been back from Afghanistan. One of my good friends ended up dying over there this last deployment, and two others got seriously injured. I was almost killed by a rocket propelled grenade.

The man admitted to committing a possible mass murder, the bomb did not go off. But, he tried. I am glad they are getting information out of him. But, I also believe he should be put to death for treason. He is a naturalized citizen in this country, and has admitted to trying to murder other citizens in an act of terrorism. That, is treason.
 
tyflier said:
This is especially true in the post-9/11, Bush-induced hate-mongering, justified-racist society we have seen develope over the last 9 years...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if anyone is responsible for the post 9/11 "racism", it's the terrorists themselves. I don't know if you noticed or not but 19, almost 20, Hijackers were all of middle eastern decent. I don't understand how you can blame BUSH or anyone else but the terrorist for that?!?! I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

Wayne
 
I don't blame GW Bush for the way other people act, nor for the hatred that fanatic muslims recieve in relation to the actions they condone. I only blame Bush for the things he said.

Unfortunately, Bush gave a lot of speeches that were very vaguely angry at a culture that most Americans don't fully understand(myself included). His fear-filled speeches instilled fear in the hearts of many Americans. Fear leads to hatred...

Medusacoils wrote-
I'm sorry, but if anyone is responsible for the post 9/11 "racism", it's the terrorists themselves. I don't know if you noticed or not but 19, almost 20, Hijackers were all of middle eastern decent. I don't understand how you can blame BUSH or anyone else but the terrorist for that?!?! I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. But Bush's speeches were incendiary, and they fed this fear that already existed. Was it Bush's fault? OK...maybe not. But he certainly didn't help matters, any...
 
tsst said:
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:
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was trying to say, but more to the point here.
tyflier said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Chris,...you, Todd, and I seem to greatly overlap here at a minimum. I would really like to know the deeper mindset of whoever (i.e., McCain and Lieberman) would be against anyone being mirandized, citizen or not.
I mean, that is a minor box to check off compared to the heavy legal artillery that will logically follow if they are packing explosives...or an Al Qaeda (or other terrorist group) membership ID card in their wallet.

EDIT : Note that I am conspicuously not going down the 9/11, racism, profiling, Bush, hate, terror, etc., OT path.
 
vetusvates said:
Exactly what I was trying to say, but more to the point here.

Yeah, Chris,...you, Todd, and I seem to greatly overlap here at a minimum. I would really like to know the deeper mindset of whoever (i.e., McCain and Lieberman) would be against anyone being mirandized, citizen or not.
I mean, that is a minor box to check off compared to the heavy legal artillery that will logically follow if they are packing explosives...or an Al Qaeda (or other terrorist group) membership ID card in their wallet.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right to me. I just don't see what is the big deal.

EDIT : Note that I am conspicuously not going down the 9/11, racism, profiling, Bush, hate, terror, etc., OT path.
Click to expand...

Duly noted. I'll leave it alone. That's not what this topic was about...
 
Another side question for this topic. If after being mirandized a terrorist confesses fully with enough detail and evidential support. Should we move straight to sentencing and lesson the burden on the court system?
 
tsst said:
Another side question for this topic. If after being mirandized a terrorist confesses fully with enough detail and evidential support. Should we move straight to sentencing and lesson the burden on the court system?
Click to expand...

You handle it just like you would any other confession.
 
tsst said:
Another side question for this topic. If after being mirandized a terrorist confesses fully with enough detail and evidential support. Should we move straight to sentencing and lesson the burden on the court system?
Click to expand...

No. Our judicial system is lengthy, flawed, and expensive. But it is the only tool we have. You can't use a hammer without the handle.

There is no short cut to justice...
 
tsst said:
Another side question for this topic. If after being mirandized a terrorist confesses fully with enough detail and evidential support. Should we move straight to sentencing and lesson the burden on the court system?
Click to expand...
That would be tempting, but it opens way too many doors down way too many corridors. I myself would be too tempted even, in certain/several crimes, to 'abbreviate' the process.
Blue Apple Herps said:
You handle it just like you would any other confession.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
tyflier said:
No. Our judicial system is lengthy, flawed, and expensive. But it is the only tool we have. You can't use a hammer without the handle.

There is no short cut to justice...
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I should have have worded my question better. By 'confesses fully' I was inferring the waving of all rights to a trial.

I asked because a few years back I read about a lawyer that was filing motions on behalf of inmates on death row. If I remember correctly the inmates neither requested nor wanted the motions filed. The lawyer had found a loophole that enabled him to bilk the system for legal fees as the fees were being paid by tax payers. In some instances the inmates themselves were forced to fight against this lawyer filing the motions. The guy had founded his practice on doing this.
 
vetusvates said:
That would be tempting, but it opens way too many doors down way too many corridors. I myself would be too tempted even, in certain/several crimes, to 'abbreviate' the process.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That would open a loop hole, too large and too vague.


In reference to the lawyer filing motions against wishes, that's just dirty. I believe the aggrieved party should be privy to anything that is filed "on their behalf," so to speak.
 
BloodyBaroness said:
In reference to the lawyer filing motions against wishes, that's just dirty. I believe the aggrieved party should be privy to anything that is filed "on their behalf," so to speak.
Click to expand...

I agree, so long as they're fit to make such decisions. But if they're competent enough to stand trial, then they should have the final say in any briefs or motions filed on their behalf.
 
Blue Apple Herps said:
I agree, so long as they're fit to make such decisions. But if they're competent enough to stand trial, then they should have the final say in any briefs or motions filed on their behalf.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right to me. I think a lawyer like that should be disbarred on the grounds of ethical fraud.

As for a waiver of their rights to trial...I think something like this would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I think the situation(s) would need to be very specific to avoid any negative backlash.

However, I am all for Death Row inmates being allowed to waive their rights to appeal, and seek immediate punishment...
 
Obama said yesterday he was "open to looking at" changing the Miranda rule.

Read the New York Times article here.
 
I agree with Chris here- your miranda rights give you the right to remain silent and seek out legal council- not run free, or be charged as guilty. How can this even be a question I'm a little confused? Whether your a legal citizen or not if you break the law, or are suspected of breaking a law you deserve some rights until your guilt or innocence is proven. At that time sure if you are convicted of terrorism, murder, rape, or other severe acts against the country or a person you should have your citizenship stripped and be sent back to your country of origin. Sending someone back, or to jail before a trial sets up a slippery slope for law officials to manipulate confessions, outright make them up, or use coercive tactics to gain what they want to here promising a lesser sentence. Just wouldn't be right:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top