Miranda Rights! I am very interested in the fact that Miranda rights were denied to the bombing suspect in Boston... Don't get me wrong, this guy needs to be burning in hell asap, but...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I am very interested in the fact that Miranda rights were denied to the bombing suspect in Boston... Don't get me wrong, this guy needs to be burning in hell asap, but that does not negate his constitutionally guaranteed rights as a citizen of our country... Just so people don't think that I am bashing the administration, that is not what this post is about, several republicans are strong advocates for not allowing Miranda rights in this particular case John McCain and Lindsey Graham have both been outspoken on the subject...

But is this not what our constitution is all about, preserving our individual rights against the events of any given period of time and the tyranny of the collective good in such times?

Remus Loc: Norfolk, UK

We get this sort of demand in UK every now and then when someone has been caught committing a terrible crime. My answer is always "stick to the letter of the law. If they bend the law for him today, they may bend it for you tomorrow".

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Blurryeyed wrote:

I am very interested in the fact that Miranda righ... (show quote)

Come on Blurry! Really? Don't you don't think that since 911, and the adoption of the anti terrorist act, (in this day and age) that he should be asked questions concerning possibly more devices, more plans, other cells, and more acts of terrorism before giving him Miranda rights? He will be given his Miranda rights after they question him about matters that concern the immediate safety of US citizens. Personally I think he should be hauled off to Gitmo for the rest of his life and put in a cell with all the rest of the our enemies.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

There's been an exception to Miranda for more than twenty years. The exception is that if as a matter of public safety, you need to get information, you don't need to advise the subject of his Miranda rights.
In this case, the public safety issue is, "Are there more IED's, devices or substances that can harm the public out there?'
Thus, no Miranda is necessary at this time. They will however advise him of his Miranda rights in the near future; maybe a day or two. He's not being treated any differently than anyone else under similar circumstances.

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

This is such a thin line we are walking, isn't it? Public safety (or public DANGER) on the one hand, and Constitutional rights on the other. Let's not forget, the suspect CAN still refuse to answer questions, and may do that. The absence of Miranda does not mean he's going to be tortured, or anything like that. He really does still have his Constitutional rights, whether he's advised of it or not.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

The real Constitutional question here is: Can he be treated as an Enemy Combatant? If so, then he can be sent of to Gitmo but there hasn't been a Supreme Court ruling on that as the one case the Feds had was ultimately withdrawn and he was sent to a civilian court for trial.
One way or the other, he'll have the best interrogators the FBI has and I think a 19 year old, no matter how bright is no match for them.
I'm betting, he'll talk.

Gidgette Loc: Boerne,Texas

I'm sorry, I always think of the people killed or hurt that didn't have a choice to live or be hurt. That was taken away from them without any "Rights" being read to them.

Falcon Loc: Abilene, Texas

An attorney can give us better guidance here, but Miranda refers to the fact that anything a suspect says before he has been advised of his rights cannot be used against him in court. Thus it becomes the prosecutor's concern about when to Mirandize a suspect. Determining if there are additional IED's laying around seems more important than being able to prosecute him for them after they explode--even if that information cannot be used later.

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

Falcon wrote:

An attorney can give us better guidance here, but Miranda refers to the fact that anything a suspect says before he has been advised of his rights cannot be used against him in court. Thus it becomes the prosecutor's concern about when to Mirandize a suspect. Determining if there are additional IED's laying around seems more important than being able to prosecute him for them after they explode--even if that information cannot be used later.

If this is the case, Falcon, and it sounds reasonable to me, there should easily be 70-80 years worth of stuff they don't need to question him about, so as to protect their prosecution against him, and still satisfy public safety.

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

What we need to remember is that when rights are taken from "Them", they are taken from "Us" And anyone who thinks that they will only use these exceptions on the "bad people" is dreaming.

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

phcaan wrote:

What we need to remember is that when rights are taken from "Them", they are taken from "Us" And anyone who thinks that they will only use these exceptions on the "bad people" is dreaming.

I agree with you 100%, phcaan, but I don't see any harm to the suspect if they're not allowed to use the info against him in court, just for public safety. But you are right, we need to always have a watchful eye...good point.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Danilo wrote:

I agree with you 100%, phcaan, but I don't see any harm to the suspect if they're not allowed to use the info against him in court, just for public safety. But you are right, we need to always have a watchful eye...good point.

I was unaware of the Public Safety exemption until this case, upon further consideration of that I guess that maybe my concerns are unfounded as long as any information given up in those 48 hours can not be used against him during trial.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

phcaan wrote:

What we need to remember is that when rights are taken from "Them", they are taken from "Us" And anyone who thinks that they will only use these exceptions on the "bad people" is dreaming.

And that is the crux of the issue exactly. Freedom, liberty and rights are never enhanced by violating them, ever. Liberty has never been advanced, ever, by compromising it.

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

There's no real "exemption." The police can question anyone, anytime, without mirandizing them. The only downside to doing that is, as has been pointed out, that anything the suspect says can't be used against him. For that matter, neither can any other information that was developed as a result of the questioning. Whatever he says after being arrested, and before being mirandized, can't be used as evidence.

F16 Club

Despite the terrible thing, now is the hardest time for America, and the supreme Court, for this test the Constitution and respect that should the government before it.