Lester Burnham

So the feds just admitted in their press conference they did not give the Boston suspect his Miranda rights under the "terrorist act" exception.

So, does he deserve Miranda, or should the feds interrogate him Zero Dark Thirty style?

Discuss...

dyna mo

has the sc ruled on the exception, i'm not sure?

if not, no fucking way, if so, i don't know.

spiederman

I guess he gave up his rights when he decided to go into hiding/running

__________________

Lester Burnham

I believe they did. You can interrogate a terrorist suspect without Miranda, but you can't use confession in criminal trial....

Waterboard time?

L-Pink

One thing he doesn't deserve is a technicality.

dyna mo

that's how i was looking at it too.

whew, tbh, i don't know. i think for the sake of appearing fully judicial, if that's the right way to put it, is to read him his rights and try him as a citizen.

whew, no shit, wow, hopefully. that's the risk if you read him his rights right? that's the difference ultimately, easier to get off on a technicality.

TheFootMan5

They got the patsy!

dyna mo

in looking at it like this, i figured it was due to a sense of urgency at the time but the fbi spokesperson did invoke the exclusion when asked about it at the press conference.

so i guess in hindsight, it was a strategic move.

Mr Pheer

Miranda isnt a right, it's a warning.

The right that the Miranda warning is all about is given to you by the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Whether this shitbag deserves any rights or not... he's lucky it's not up to me. I say make him suffer.

dyna mo

here is what i've learned about how it stands currently:::

The Obama administration has created a new policy that allows investigators to waive Miranda warnings for domestic-terror suspects, even when there is not an “immediate threat,” a report said Thursday.

The rule was revealed by an FBI memorandum obtained by The Wall Street Journal. It says that in “exceptional cases,” investigators can hold suspects without informing them of their rights.

The policy applies where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.”


A 1966 Supreme Court ruling said that law-enforcement officials must notify suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present for questioning. Another decision, 1n 1984, gave law enforcement the ability to question suspects for a limited time without a Miranda warning where public safety was at stake.

The 1984 exception has been used to justify interrogating domestic-terror suspects for hours without reading them their rights.

With the new rules, that exception has been significantly expanded.

dyna mo

oh, i guess i should add- i read that to mean the warning is a right.

Relentless

He should have been mirandized, tried in open court and shown as an example of the fact that we are ruled by the rule of law.
None of that prevents him from being questioned or punished.

__________________


Website Secure | Engine Food
ICQ# 266-942-896

MrMaxwell

That is in movies where you get away with something because of no miranda or not being coherent enough to understand the language it was said in

fitzmulti

Twitter humor:
~~~~~~~~
@TheFakeCNN:
Anyone wanna buy a bloody boat?

__________________

J.R.

Make it work.

Supz

He gave up his rights.