Yes, Faisal Shahzad must get Mirandized.

RedBeard

…why he hates Obamacare.

http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

That is the thing that bugs me most. Terrorism has become fear inducing of another sort. Whether a natural born, naturalized, or non- citizen it was terrorism.

Marcus_Traianus

to charge him under Title 18, Chapter 115 Treason. Why? Because the preferred punishment is death.

That tact would force Obama to explain why they didn’t want to hang a guy who tried to kill, maim and severely burn a bunch of New Yorkers, tourists, school kids, families and other theater goers.

Fifty bucks says the conviction is for something less, with less than life in prison, which will be commuted for “cooperation”.

jpniner

he can’t be a citizen, the entire goal of Islam is to live under Global Sharia Law.

If anything Treason charges apply, John Wilkes Booth was one of many old examples of a Citizen not read Miranda Rights and tried in a Military Court.

Trying to blow up NYC to advance Jihad not an Act of War????

btw, Miranda isn’t in the Constitution.

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

This site is not a safe place to accuse Americans of disloyalty en masse because you don’t like their religion.

Understand? Indicate that you understand in your next post.

indyjohn

will probably be Attempted Murder with a WMD. The Justice Department will offer him life imprisonment in return for a guilty plea, thus keeping the case out of court. If all of the facts of this case were revealed in court, they would have the potential to seriously embarrass the Obama administration. Holder will never allow that.

Richard Mullins

Means that we have a few more options what to do with him. It’s a right when your born here but it’s a privilege if your naturalized. Treason would be the best option but I’m sure that they would use the lesser punishment. I don’t our present admin likes to put those of high crimes to death. All I hope is that the right things are done.

http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

Miranda v. Arizona was in the 1960s. There were no “Miranda rights” until then.

jpniner

The Citizenship Oath, please tell how a Jihadist(who are taught to LIE to Infidels) can take this Oath when their Religious Goals are anti-US, and at total and complete odds against our Laws, ideals and country??? Their goal, stated repeatedly from the prophet muhammed and the Crusades he started and over the last 1300 yrs is Global Sharia Rule:

I hereby declare, on oath,

?that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

?that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

?that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

?that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;

?that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

?that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;

?and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

jpniner

and in the past has not been used in every case if someone is technically a citizen or not?

Looks like it wasn’t a Lone Wolf, but an organized plot and others were not citizens. Should we therefore Mirandize and treat as a Crime those that got through Citizenship Oath, but treat their conspiritors that aren’t citizens as Enemy Combatants as we traditionally have Acts of War ?

How can one commit an act of war, while the other who carried it out commit just a Criminal Act to get lawyered up with?

jpniner

So 9 men/women in robes trump the Constituion, the Treason Clause and recognizing Acts of War?

If this is true, then we can’t cite the Constitution as trumping all the SCOTUS rulings on the Commerce Clause paving the way for the New Deal, Great Society and Obamacare. The Men in Robes have spoken.

streiff

John Wilkes Booth was Mirandized by Boston Corbett’s carbine in a tobacco barn in Virginia. Get your facts straight.

Maybe Miranda isn’t in your copy of the Constitution, but those of us who can read have a different version.

streiff

Miranda is a convenient shorthand but the rights spelled out in Miranda had been around for a while. Even the WW II version of Articles of War provided that the accused be provided counsel before questioning, etc.

aesthete

There has never been any precedent under which a naturalized citizen is treated differently under the law than a born citizen — that would be self-defeating, in that it would say that we don’t truly believe that anyone not born on the US side of the line can be a participant in our democratic system.

josephusmyer

Most muslims, I’m sure, don’t believe that the rest of the world should live under Sharia unless they are persuaded peaceably to do so. To suggest otherwise indicates a racist hostility to Muslims.

A US citizen committing an act of war against the US should face treason charges, although I suspect that the “two witnesses to the… overt act” may be a problem (since the placing of the bomb could be considered covert, and thus there isn’t an overt act to witness). Once he’s lawyered up, he won’t confess if that confession would open him to a treason conviction.

I doubt, however, that a jury would consent to a death sentence for treason which did not cause a death, and so the effect might be the same either way. Just lock him up for life and be done with it.

It’s rather obvious that he didn’t comply with his naturalization oath, but tbh perjury against that is the least of his problems.

With regard to Miranda, it’s a judicial decision that the constitution would be contravened if a suspect was not told that he had the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. To be honest, that’s a common-sense approach and one which prevents police arresting honest people and punching them until they confess to crimes they didn’t do. As far as safeguards go, it’s an entirely sensible one, and shouldn’t be denied to suspects in particularly bad crimes.

Also, there remains the chance he’s actually innocent. Who knows – perhaps someone had threatened to kill his family if he didn’t, or perhaps he looks like someone else who really did it. Keep an open mind until we know all the facts.

Richard Mullins

and for the punishment if guilty, can of more things than those born in the US. I don’t think we have conferred Treason on a naturalized citizen before and I’m sure it won’t happen. The fact that it a privilege to a citizen if not born here. Breaking the law is in violation of the privilege of being a Naturalized citizen(that’s not the same for those born here because at being born here is a right). I hope someone will locate immigration law on this as I’m a bit shakey on it.

jpniner

” After Booth?s death (April 26, 1865), Mudd was arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder Abraham Lincoln.

On May 1, 1865, President Andrew Johnson ordered the formation of a nine-man military commission to try the conspirators.”

—–

In modern day, getting Mirandized means you get treated like a Criminal, ACLU Lawyered up and in our Criminal system.

jpniner

seems reasonable, especially since they aren’t required to automatically read Miranda. In normal cases they don’t get read until they are about to be questioned, often times much after the arrest
—-

McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a longtime leading Republican on national security issues, said he expected the suspect in the case could face charges that might warrant a death sentence if convicted.

?Obviously that would be a serious mistake?at least until we find out as much information we have,? McCain said during an appearance on ?Imus in the Morning? when asked whether the suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan.

?Don?t give this guy his miranda rights until we find out what it?s all about,? McCain added.

—-

streiff

You said “John Wilkes Booth” not me, your title give the impression I made the mistake. I didn’t.

I’m well aware of the trial of the Lincoln assassination conspirators, no need to cut and paste from Wikipedia to establish your lack of credibility.

josephusmyer

Miranda is a judicial decision. It is a correct decision even if it was from a court that got some other things wrong. What it says is that the Constitution would be breached if you are not read your rights.

What the Constitution certainly says is that people cannot be made to self-incriminate, and that they have the right to due process of law.

It’s perfectly reasonable and correct that police should have to tell you that you have the right not to self-incriminate and the right to a lawyer. How could you protect the constitutional right not to self-incriminate if suspects didn’t know they had that right? Perhaps even more importantly, how could you protect the constitutional right to due process of law (a fair trial) if police could torture people into false confessions with no lawyer present and introduce it as evidence of guilt?

If police could barge into any honest person’s home, drag them off and beat them until they made a false confession, no-one would be safe. Miranda, Gideon and similar decisions are important safeguards.

The fact that it is not written word-for-word in the Constitution is irrelevant. The US is a Common Law system, which means (amongst other things) that judges interpret what the law is. They shouldn’t legislate, but they should interpret. With the Constitution, certain general rights are given and their exact extent is set out by judicial decisions. Liberals go too far – they say that judges can create new rights. A Conservative says that judges have every right to determine the scope of an existing right, but none to invent new ones. Thus, the Court correctly held that the right not to self incriminate includes the right to be told your rights. It is emphatically the duty of the Court to uphold the Constitution. Miranda does so. Miranda is right.

Also, let’s say there’s a possibility Shahzad didn’t do it – perhaps he has a doppelganger. Don’t deny people their rights when you’re not 100% certain they did it.

PS – as others have said, cut the racism. You make the rest of us look bad by association with your crazy islamophobic beliefs.

cactusjack

these cases but, practically speaking, I’m OK if they end up life in prison no parole. We need to keep some of them around to corroborate other prisoners/detainees and provide further intel; some of the ones we’ve held for awhile have really been “singing,” thank God. And the government never seems to be able to move very fast in cases where the US attorney announces they are seeking the federal death penalty. The only case in this jurisprudential area the government seemed to be in one hellacious rush to try, convict, execute & permanently silence, was Timothy McVeigh….hmmmm……..

Richard Mullins

because it’s up to US and more importantly of judicial system to make it all work. Many things are aren’t directly in it and as such are about setting things in its context. Sometimes their wrong(Roe v Wade) and sometimes there right(Miranda v Arizona) but it is and always will be interpreted.

jpniner

. It is only required AFTER you are arrested and just before he intends to interrogate you. If its before Arrest, he can ask you whatever and no rights that you should already know, must be read.

which is beside the point, which is:

1) Is this War or Crime? (are we conceeding this point to left now?)

If its a crime, you Mirandize, he gets ACLU’d up and stuck in our Criminal system since prosecuting Terrorism in attempts to topple the USA is merely a Crime

If its War, he’s transported as an enemy combatant and he effectively renounced his citizenship(which he lied when he gave his oath anyway) and prosecuted that way.

McCain’s suggestion to not auto-pilot Miranda and auto-criminalize seems prudent and non-foolish.

wolfster38

Once you take the rights away from one American or a group of Americans you risk the rights of all Americans. Do i like what this person has done? NO. But he has rights as an American. The end

As for Bloomberg and the left, I know they were hoping this was a white Tea Party person but it wasn’t . It was a guy who watched leftwing cartoons and didn’t like the leftist message it had. It shouldn’t be called “South Park” it should be called “Left Park”! And if his plan would have worked would the leftist media blamed the writers of left Park for any deaths?

Would this be “Man Made Disasterism”

jpniner

read the Koran and the stated objectives of the Jihadist Religion for crying out loud.

you sound like Keith Olbermann

jpniner

for pointing this out about the Jihadis????

“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]”

- Thomas Jefferson

sounds familar doesn’t it. Sura 9.29 and Surah 9.5 are good starting places for understanding their theology and worldview of global domination advanced via the sword.

josephusmyer

The Constitution and its amendments list certain rights. It also delegates the judicial power to the Supreme Court and inferior tribunals. Judicial power means determining whether something breaks the law or not. To do so, a Court first has to work out what the law is. Now, the 9 people in robes may get what the law is wrong. In Miranda, I (and most others) believe they were absolutely right in deciding that police could not lock people up without telling them their rights.

Remember that a Court’s constitutional function is to interpret. Unlike Liberals, Conservatives don’t believe that a Court can create new rights, but that it takes the law and determines what its scope is. To be able to call balls and strikes, you have to know what the strike zone is. To find out how to set the strike zone, you read the rules and apply them to the batter in front of you.

Read a judicial decision, and you’ll see that the judges set out their reasoning. You may not always think they have it right. Nevertheless, something has to be pretty persuasive to convince five or more of the nine people selected for their skill in the law. Sometimes, decisions are wrong.

For example, in Roe v. Wade, the Court puts a load of theory down (much of which is valid) and then comes to a conclusion which doesn’t come close to fitting the theory. The Court identifies 3 rights – privacy, the mother’s health and the rights of the potential child. What it then does is reach an illogical conclusion that only the first applies for the first 3 months. It’s a prominent mistake.

But, in Miranda, the Court correctly determines that the Constitution had to mean something when it said that you can’t be forced to self-incriminate. If you didn’t know you had that right, you might think you had to, and the Constitution would have had no effect. So the Court said that you have to be told you have that right, else what you say is inadmissible. Judges used good logic to work out what the right in the Constitution translates into in practice.

jpniner

/

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Just as Ron Paul does harm to the real libertarians, you do harm to those who expose Ron Paul.

You won’t be missed.

jpniner

Is plotting with Jihadi’s internationally to Blow up NYC in a larger goal of toppling the United States a:

1) Criminal Matter?

2) Martial Matter?

Very different areas of law between the two, Martial(war) doesn’t let the Court provided ACLU lawyer have full access to means of how they found and caught the accussed nor does it allow them to enter the Criminal Prisons were they can then radicalize our true criminals into Jihad, which is happening already.

Richard Mullins

jpniner

US Citizenship, this guy lied and anyone with his Religious view also were lying when they read that oath? how is this “foolish”??? Its what they believe and their stated objectives.

which is why a pointed out the Jefferson/Adams report to John Jay about the barbary Jihadist.

Adams and his congress by the way passed, which some of the laws are still on the books, the “Alien and Seditions Acts”, which makes what I’m talking about child’s play in comparison.

what would they know about “shredding the constitution” though, they just helped formulate it.

streiff

you are wrong in both areas.

Courts martial and military commissions have discovery provisions available to the defense and their civilian attorneys have the same access to them as their military attorneys.

jpniner

?

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Bye.

jccbin

Yes, Miranda, etc take on the power of law created by the Constitution. That and ALL Supreme Court decisions reflect the interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning at the time of the decision. Wisdom tends to improve over time, and these decisions are replaced by new, allegedly better, precedent over time.

This does not imply that the Constitution is a “living document,” or that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time.

What this does mean is that as new events, crimes, and technologies appear, the application of the Constitution to those new events, crimes, and technologies sometimes needs clarification or definition.

The Constitution remains. Unchanged, except by huge effort.
Decisions change with great, but not Constitution-changing effort.
Laws change within the framework of the Constitution and the Decisions of The Court, obeying the Constitution.
Regulations and Procedures are defined by the laws, obeying the Constitution.

None of the above is permanent in the scale of Civilization. Not even the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is the document that defines the rights recognized by the Constitution, but it does not limit the number of Constitutions that may exist over time; in fact, the Declaration specifically defines when it is the citizens’ duty to Destroy their government and start over.

There is a beautiful logic to this progression: From unalienable rights all the way down to proper procedure to interrogate a suspect, the chain should be unbroken.

Precedents, as formed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, stand as nearly Constitutional in endurance, and AS Constitutional in power and effect.

Thus, it is quite possible for a precedent to be wrong under the Constitution, but exist and be enforced for a time. The correction can take two (2) forms:
1) a new precedent established by the Supreme Court or,
2) a Constitutional amendment.

There have been some terrible precedents over the years. I am not a legal scholar, but I can remember studying precedents that continued slavery, for instance, and I am sure there are dozens of others.

So, it is possible to honestly claim a precedent is wrong, wrong-headed, and in need of change while still demanding other precedents be enforced as right.

YMMV

constitutionalconservative

It’s really important that we conservatives stand up for Constitutional rights, even when those rights are used to protect a particularly loathsome citizen.

If he is found guilty, I yield to no one in my desire to see him punished for his treason, but we can’t treat ciitzens the way we (correctly) treat opponents on the battlefield.

Of course, I certainly hope someone asks why we are letting in so many immigrants from Pakistan and other countries that are filled with people who hate us. . .

Joshua Persons

Seriously, and I don’t mean this as an insult, I cannot at all parse what you are trying to say.

Regarding the rights of naturalized vs natural born citizens, see the Fourteenth Amendment. Citizens, no matter what type, have equal protection of the laws.

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Marcus_Traianus

See Haupt V. United States 330, U.S. 631 or CRAMER v. UNITED STATES.

Personally, the citizenship argument is a slippery slope. Arguing whether he is/is not a citizen does nothing to support the merits of a conviction. There are ample grounds in U.S.C. whereby if he either; took the oath under false pretenses or in the case of 8 U.S.C. ? 1481 he “entered into the armed forces of a foreign state” this tango would lose citizenship. But then what? I could be wrong, but that looks like a negative to me.

Richard Mullins

but he was working with an enemy nation at the time(namely Germany during WWII) and that doesn’t seem to be the case. I’m thinking let’s get the info, allow for 5th Amendment right and get on to the trial. It doesn’t to stop things when at this point, since he’s only suspected of Terrorism. I guess we will find out in the end.

Richard Mullins

No, so let’s get back on topic. I’m sure I’ve stated that on the punishment side if found guilty, that it’s an option. I guess I being thought of as a “Hang him now” kind of person. That’s not the case at all. I hope I’ve clarified for you.

revolutionary

discussing this on FOX news this am. As bad as I hate to see it, the man is a citizen and has the same rights. What got me this morning was Brian practically attacking Beck for this view. I think he was out of line in his sarcasm about Beck being okay with not getting any info from this guy that was trying to kill us because he had been Mirandized. You can’t have the Constitution mean one thing in this case and another thing in another case according to your feelings. If you trample it over this, it opens the door for someone ese to trample it when it suits their need. I felt bad for Beck because Brian was badgering him in the discussion.

Richard Mullins

He’s a citizen and does have rights, of course when found guilty there are different options for him since he’s a naturalized citizen(we can’t strip a person of citizenship if born here).

Common_Cents

Richard Mullins

RINKER

…and it is frequently criticized by conservative legal scholars.
Paul Cassell worked in the Reagan Justice Department, and he has written often on the problems with the Miranda decision. Here is his bio, and you can click on the articles at the bottom that refer to Miranda if you are interested:

http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/faculty-profile/?id=paul-cassell

afterseven

Our Constitution as interpreted by our Supreme Court requires that US Citizens get Mirandized. It’s an issue of procedural due process.

One could make the argument that spies in the Civil War were tried by Military Tribunal and Hung or executed by Firing Squad. In fact many soldiers were executed for lesser crimes of Rape, Robbery or Desertion. Clearly this was the pre-Miranda USA. Absent a Civil War or an active Invasion, there is no justification for Trial by Military tribunal for US Citizens who are arrested on US soil and who are not in the US Military.

More importantly, at a philosophical level, if the law did not require procedural safegaurds for US Citizens, Fascist regimes like Obama could arrest and detain indefinitely any US Citizen for any reason, they could coerce confessions and do untold harm to our nation. Hence the right to Miranda warnings, the Right to face your accuser and the right to a speedy Trial among other procedural mandates. Miranda warnings aren’t just a protection for US Citizens who are Progressives or Islamic Radicals, it’s a protection for YOU!

archer52

He claims 5-8, looks more like 5-6 and acts like he has the classic “little man’s syndrome.” Bloomberg says he wants to control your salt intake, your healthcare, your income, and now he wants cameras everywhere so he can watch your every move.

Not his, only yours.

If New York wants that kind of leadership, well that’s their business. However, the problem is whatever happens in Cal and NY eventually leaks out across the nation.

Honestly, do you need more proof that our elitists want to change us into some kind of Britain or worse? He thinks cameras stop the event in Times Square? Why? Because it will RECORD the explosion? He doesn’t care about that, he wants to spy on you and this is just one of the excuses he uses.

Beware

JadedByPolitics

ALWAYS that way with super rich who run for office because well they are rich and bored and need POWER. I don’t understand the thought patterns of those in NY who keep electing this person who thinks he is better then every one else. He absolutely has NOTHING in common with the MAJORITY of New Yorkers!

kowalski

Mike Bloomberg graduated from Johns Hopkins University and he’s a fraternity brother of mine and my father’s.

After making billions of dollars because America was so great to him and gave him so much opportunity, the first people he thinks to blame when something he can’t explain happens in his city are his fellow Americans, based on a slur and a cariacture and in the most luridly dismissve way possible.

What happened to his mind? It’s really sick. He became a knee-jerk Liberal.

Mike, wake up. Wake UP. We’re still here for you, Mike.

kowalski

And I did that because I thought he wasn’t nuts. It turns out that he’s pretty unbalanced, that he has extremely stereotypical views that are straight out of the Phil Donahue show. Hopkins should take back its awards, and it maybe shouldn’t have given them anyway.

After all, at the meeting where he got the first Entrepreneurial award he already showed a lot of signs of just not caring about what anyone else thinks. I think the more power he has accumulated, the worse that has become.

He’s become a very strange person to me — someone I thought I knew, that I could trust, but whose words and actions have become increasingly technocratic, liberal-elite, and totalitarian. God help us if he runs for President.

pirate55

I understand the dictates of the Warren Court and observed the evolution of the “Miranda Warnings” named for the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The warnings embrace and safeguard one’s rights under primarily the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

We should not have a problem with Miranda and must embrace the warnings as a safeguard to a citizen’s individual rights. It protects Americans as it should by informing them of their options. Though we are conservative we must strongly stand behind our Constitution and its safeguards for the individual citizen. After all they applied to Timothy McVeigh and they should apply here. When apprehended one has the option to talk or not, Miranda not withstanding. When properly given it neither encourages, nor discourages that particular option.

And now with “tongue in cheek” as it was Miranda v. Arizona we can move the trial venue to Phoenix!

kowalski

Somebody should have called him mentally unbalanced when he received his crystal award at Johns Hopkins and he responded to a professor’s question in the audience:

“I have an army of lawyers who will find a way to do whatever I want” in a response to a professor’s question about Bloomberg TV and international regulation.

They gave him the award anyway. Everybody clapped. And his entire career ever since then has reminded me on several occasions that he just really does believe that, to an ever increasing extent. Hopkins and Harvard might have created themselves a tyrant.

I hope not, but the more I listen to him the more I have to believe that the power has gone to his head in a bad way.

kowalski

You can see just how dismissive and juvenile Bloomberg can be when he has to confront an idea that he just thinks is stupid — like the idea, not of terrorism, but of “disagreeing with the health care bill.”

In his mind, anyone who disagrees with it is just, well, they’re just stupid. He’s not much of a conciliator. In his own words:

“I guess everybody else is just smarter than me.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

Scope

with this administration, Miranda rights are supreme, OK, I get that. The Times Square want to be bomber, from what I heard on Fox tonight, was questioned first under some such law, and then he was moved to another facility, and then was read his Miranda rights. They say he is still talking. Because he was a naturalized American citizen, and was arrested on American soil, would that invalidate his initial statements, before the miranda rights were read to him? He was not represented by any American lawyer at the time. Holder is a slick and sly Atty. Gen. who represented other international terrorists in the past. Could he be giving an out for this terrorist?

Scope

any confessions, taken under torture or “duress” will not be allowed as evidence in his “civilian trial.”

pirate55

……it is not the responsibility of authority to stop them from talking, even if it is against their own penal interest. The critical key is that if talking prior to Miranda warnings are given, there is no responsibility to stop the person, if the information being volunteered (key word volunteered) is not a response to questions, but is merely being given freely. Just because someone is stating “I did it” does not mean authority has to interrupt and say, “Hold on there, we have to give you your Miranda warnings”.

Just because someone is “volunteering” information, there is no reason to assume “duress” is being applied, though many liberal people for the life of them cannot accept people sometimes talk and incriminate themselves, merely because they WANT TO. Let’s wait until all the facts are in.

Common_Cents

Similar to the hollyweird types. The actors that make millions deep down don’t think they deserve it. they all operate out of guilt. This happens with the trust funders too, as well as the self made millionaires/billionaires. They have been too far detached from reality for some time they develop the same guilt.

aesthete

The error lied in that he was a foreign national not entitled to Constitutional rights. I’m glad that there has been such strong pushback from conservatives on the issue: as usual, John McCain is completely wrong, and we should always be vigilant for encroachments on our freedoms.

http://whereswalden.com/ Jeff Walden

http://volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/

Insightful and detailed as always.

johnt

Sorry, but I’m less sure then Beck on this.
What takes Constitutional priority over a Supreme Court decision on the informing of rights? Habeas Corpus that’s what.
Yet there is ample precedent for the suspension of that right during time of war. As well I might add, as other rights.
I do take it we are at war, Democrats aside. Lincoln suspended H C during the Civil War, ignoring a writ from Chief Justice Taney himself.
120,000 American citizens were detained/imprisoned during WW ll & not a nod to H C. Woodrow Wilson had a Sedition Act passed, mail opened, free speech curtailed & people arrested during the war he did so much to get us into, WW 1.

I realize we are a dying nation and ere long we will all be wearing petticoats and reciting odes to President Obama, but there exists legal grounds for avoiding MIranda including both recent and historical considerations. If only we have the will.

lucretius

And thank you for laying out the conservative position on the role of the judiciary better than any OP-Ed columnist. As a liberal, I don’t completely agree and would argue that conservative justices have written similar or worse opinions in the other direction. But it’s refreshing to find common ground.

lucretius

And thank you for laying out the conservative position on the role of the judiciary better than any OP-Ed columnist. As a liberal, I don’t completely agree and would argue that conservative justices have written similar or worse opinions in the other direction. But it’s refreshing to find common ground.

Joshua Persons

Richard, you’re talking about “a few more options” for dealing with naturalized citizens than with natural-born citizens. I have no idea what the “options” are that you’re talking about. As far as the Fourteenth Amendment goes, the system has exactly the same options for dealing with both types of citizens; they’re equal under the law. So, perhaps you can detail how you think the system can deal with natural-born citizens, how the system can deal with naturalized citizens, and how the two sets of options are different?

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Yes, Faisal Shahzad must get Mirandized.

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL