wylie Loc: Canada

What tschmath said! Exactly and well expressed. The words "terrorist" and "terrorist attack" and "homeland security" require some explanation. And the use of these words followed by "to kill infidels which means us" borders on suggestions of underlying racism. Yet, I do believe the bombing in Boston and the actions of the likes of Timothy McVie are one and the same. Acts of war against American society. And they should be dealt with as such. But just because those accused are of Persian or Pakistani origin, and possibly of the Muslim faith, does not mean the whole of America should stoop to suspending anyone's rights. Or changing the basic laws that weave the very fabric of their society. If, in fact, the guilty party is proven guilty, they should be dealt with as would any other guilty party. And your Constitution would remain intact, for all of the people, all of the time. And all Americans could once again, more realistically return to being world leaders in everyone's eyes!

wylie Loc: Canada

error - I must be a bit stunned today. Is there no way to delete this note?

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Several things come to mind:
...Who was it that said its better to set 10 guilty men free than incarcerate one innocent?
In Maryland, several years ago, a man was sentanced to death for a rape/murder. His case was fought for, I bleieve, 16 years before the DNA was looked at closely andd that lead to the real culprit who confessed when confronted. The innocent man was finally freed, but...
...do we want to return to the age fo the "Hanging Judge" and vigilant justice?
...Perfect safety means perfect servitude to paraphrase, I belive, Franklin

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Read the constitution it is a rather small document and your question is answered.

imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

There is already a Supreme Court decision in place regarding this. It was made in 1984 and it is called the Quarles Exemption. This allows for questioning without any Miranda Rights being explained, when the immediate safety of the public is involved. This would fit nicely into that exemption because of the possibility of more bombs, other people involved, other bombs in place to detonate.

MyPharo Loc: New Jersey

I think that you missed his point entirely .. He was not making a nullification of the Boston Bombing .He was making an analogy of the severity and how is something would be rated .. Chill .

MyPharo Loc: New Jersey

The Public Safety Exemption Is Real
The Supreme Court first held that there is a public safety exemption to Miranda in a 1984 case known as New York v. Quarles. In Quarles a woman told police that a man with a gun raped her, and that he’d run into a nearby grocery store. Police quickly found the suspect within the store, arrested him after a brief chase, handcuffed him, and discovered that he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. Before reading him his rights, an officer asked him where the gun was, and the suspect told the cop where to find it. After retrieving the gun, police then read the suspect his Miranda rights.
Although the Constitution generally forbids law enforcement from interrogating suspects in custody without first reading them their rights, the Court held that a narrow “public safety exemption” permitted the limited questioning that occurred in Quarles. As the Court explained, “procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege; when the primary social cost of those added protections is the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda majority was willing to bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding to Officer Kraft’s question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles but to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area.”
As the Court emphasized, this exemption is “narrow.” It permits police to ask a limited range of questions for the purpose of removing any imminent threats. It does not permit wide-ranging questions intended to build a case against the suspect.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

That is a poor application of the Quarles exemption, and unfortunately it was applied in a way that over-zealous law enforcement personnel will likely abuse it again in the future.

In the Quarles case, Quarles was running away from the cop and when the cop caught up with him he was found to have an empty shoulder holster. The cop asked him where the gun was without Mirandizing him and that became the basis for the case and subsequent decision.

The decision was quite narrow, and shouldn't have applied to this situation. The cops should have gotten a warrant before rousting the people in the house.

If this stands (and it probably will), we will ALL have lost considerable rights and liberty.

jcs Loc: USA

we do not need an amendment for that
.
ANY IMMIGRANT can be stripped of their US Citizenship and exported back to where they came from after having comitted ANY crime or brocken certain laws which they swore to uphold when they became Naturalized Citizens .
( that's assuming you can get it past the army of liberal Dept. of Immigration officials , Federal judges and the "free" Attorneys we taxpayers provide them to protect their "human rights " )

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Many rights are lost after someone is convicted and sentenced for these crimes. No rights should be lost before conviction.

jcs Loc: USA

Thank you for you legal advice.
Next time some scum breaks into my house and tries to rob me and rape my daughter , I'll be sure to be very careful not to violate any of HIS rights before he'll allow me to call the Police to come and arrest him.

PRETENDER Loc: Micanopy,Florida

If they took a life with intent they are a murderer and we have laws to take care oof them we just need to apply them.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

How is it racist to recognize Islamic extremism when it is acted upon causing the loss of life and untold human suffering?

Sneidley Loc: Goodyear, AZ

This is the point that your 2nd amendment rights come into play.

Ron K. Loc: Upstate NY.

Strip them of what? We give those rights to illegals and other malcontents anyway.