hamtrack Loc: Omaha NE

Fox News reported this morning that the Justice Department notified a Federal Judge that reading the surviving Boston Terrorist bomber be Merandized. The FBI operatives were in the process of interrogating the suspect and according to FBI sources were promised a legal 48 hours to do so. The FBI source also related that they had received a good deal of classified and important information that would benefit our national security efforts, but were non plussed at why they were not able to continue to interrogate the suspect further since only half the promised time had elapsed. My question is, how in hell can we afford to have a Justice Department that evidently does not intend to provide justice first, and safety for our country and it's citizens?

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

As long as we have a Progressive Liberal President this is what we will have....

Can we afford it ???

Of course not.................................................

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

You're soo right. We should throw out the 5th Amendment. Then probably the 1st and the 8th. But let's keep that 2nd Amendment so we can all shoot each other.

hamtrack Loc: Omaha NE

I would say you are completely wrong on this one. Nothing in this happening broke any laws or fractured any amendments to the Constitution. What it did demonstrate in my opinion, is the lack of concern by the Justice Department of two important factors. First and foremost, they impeded what was a legal ability by the FBI to gather further possible strategic information that would possibly protect us all. Second, they evidently ignored what was agreed to by both agencies to be the time period involved. And as an aside, your inclusion of the hissy fit over gun control had nothing to do with these revelations.

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

Proves what I have said before,
It is NOT possible to have an intelligent conversation with a liberal!

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Not a hissy fit. Just an observation that the right seams to support only the parts of the Constitution that they like for the people they like.
He may be a scumbag but he's also entitled to rights. The Public Safety doctrine was never intended to include extended interrogations so the court ruled appropriately in this case.

mooseeyes Loc: Sonora, California

I would love to know three things: 1. What law school did you graduate from? 2. How many years did you practice law? 3. Any actual on point cases or statutes that support one damn thing that you have stated.

If you are unable to provide this information, then please do us all a favor and shut the f$%k up!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

This whole Miranda thing has been thoroughly discussed in another thread.

PatrickTheCop gives an excellent explanation on pg. 4 of that thread.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-113117-1.html

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Please wallow in your stupidity.
Have a nice day.

hamtrack Loc: Omaha NE

As reported by ABC News: "Now that authorities have captured Tsarnaey, the 19 year old believed to be the second suspect in the bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday, federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception regarding his Miranda rights, a senior Justice Department official told ABC news. The exception permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence." Police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat with-out first providing a warning of rights" according to the FBI. Now since two Federal Agencies are envolved here, one charged with the responsibility of securing evidence to prosecute and the other responsible to present the evidence in court, it would seem to me that the invoking of the "public safety exception" was appropriate. No one knew how many of these murdering bastards existed, or how many more may have been out there threatening to do the same. So common sense tells me that most people in Boston would agree.

And finally, my understanding is that the court did not rule on anything, but the Judge involved was asked by the Justice Department to go over and Mirandize this suspect.

Black Bart Loc: Indiana

mooseeyes wrote:
I would love to know three things: 1. What law school did you graduate from? 2. How many years did you practice law? 3. Any actual on point cases or statutes that support one damn thing that you have stated.




YOU DID NOT ANSWER HIS QUESTION.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

He doesn't have answers, only stupid remarks and insults.
I have him on ignore.

GregC Loc: Alabaster, Al

He won't, he only knows how to name call and do his best to insult.

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

Not being Mirandized does not mean the subject, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is without his Constitutional rights. I suspect they are walking a kind of tightrope here, though. If they overdo their questioning before reading Miranda, they may jeopardize their court case. The absolute worst thing that could happen is if they wound up having their case thrown out on a technicality. I can understand how some of them, DOJ, FBI, or attorneys might be getting paranoid here.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Nor do I intend to.

You see, I'm quite accustomed to folks like you. When your argument can't stand on its own merits you attack the person your arguing with.

Now tell me. Did you graduate the 8th grade?