No, not in this situation (bombing suspect). As far as citizenship goes, the only distinction I would make is whether or not someone is tried in a military court for acts of terrorism and that would be determined outside of the initial questioning.
Tough on terror would mean immediately Mirandizing the suspect, because failure to do so increases the chance that the evidence against him will be inadmissible and he’ll get off.
Err…the bombing suspect is actually an honest-to-goodness US citizen. He was naturalized as a US citizen several years ago and that makes him a US citizen giving him precisely the same rights I enjoy. So if they want to take his rights away they are taking my rights away.
That’s an interesting read. There was a tremendous amount of effort and expense that went into this. They secretly searched out brought in family members to convince him to cooperate. This doesn’t negate the legal ability to forgo miranda in an effort to gain information on other people or impending events. This cooperation is going to come at a social cost against incarceration. Leniency has always been a bargaining chip for the prosecution and should continue to be so. But in this case we threw away a free shot at additional information.
I’m not advocating a military trial, I’m advocating the legal ability not to mirandize a suspect involved in a terrorist bomb plot. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
As Bricker pointed out, there is an exception to the Miranda rule where there is imminent danger to the public. Are you suggesting that we need to go beyond this and to exempt all alleged terrorist matters from the Miranda requirements?
It has everything to do with citizenship. As a US citizen I have certain rights and you seem ok with taking those away.
Pretend through some unlikely series of events you become a suspect in a terrorist bombing. You know you are innocent but the police have reason to believe you are involved. You are ok in that case with losing your rights? I certainly am not.
Although in this case it sure seems we have the right guy there is a presumption of innocence in our legal system.
Interestingly it seems GOP senators want to protect a terror suspect’s right to buy a gun. Your Miranda rights are bullshit…toss them but sure as hell a terror suspect should be able to buy weapons!
That make sense to you? Guess some rights are more equal than others. :rolleyes:
I’m not positive I’m parsing you correctly here, so bear with me.
This would seem to me to be a good thing. We both get useful, actionable, and more truthful information while still upholding our fundamental belief in the rule of law and the rights of the accused.
There is already an exception for impending events. I’m not sure what the “on other people” part of your quote would mean.
In what sense do you mean “free” in this sentence? I haven’t heard anything that leads me to believe Abdulmutallab is likely to receive a lesser sentence because of his cooperation - in fact it seems that by not using corercive techniques and following the rules of law as best as possible the likelihood of conviction and incarceration are in fact increased using this approach.
When people refer to Miranda rights they refer to rights that police have to inform suspects of under Miranda v. Arizona. That case concerned only the waiver of Miranda rights. The Court held that suspects could not waive their rights during a custodial interrogation by the police without knowing them first. So the Miranda warnings that police give are done to inform suspects of their rights so that suspects could then make a knowing waiver of their rights.
The Miranda case only gives you the right to make a knowing waiver of your rights during a custodial interrogation by the police. The right to remain silent and your right to an attorney are of course still available even if the police don’t tell you about them.
But stupid people don’t know that. They think that Mirandizing suspects means giving permission not to speak and thus handing them an advantage at the expense of the investigators.
Miranda just lets a stupid suspect know they have rights that they may not be aware of.
Frankly anyone who got through a high school US History class should know the 5th Amendment affords them the right to avoid self incrimination.
Miranda does not grant a right, it just informs a suspect of rights already granted.
As it happens police are entirely free to lie to you to try and coax you into hanging yourself. No law against that.
Miranda came in because if you are in custody the pressure the police can exert is considerable and, sadly, a great many people do not understand their rights. Worse, the police are free to lie and tell them they have none, they need to talk.
Miranda was a curb on this requiring police to let suspects know a minimum of their rights.
Remember this curb protects you as much as it protects mad bombers.
I guess I don’t understand what you think “Mirandizing” a suspect means. I think it means telling him he has the right to remain silent, yadda yadda, we’ve heard it a million times on cop shows.
What do you think it means? Do you think it means you can’t talk to the suspect any more? Or that you can’t torture him any more? Or what?
See, just because the suspect has been informed that he has a right to remains silent, it doesn’t mean shit unless he invokes that right. And he can invoke that right whether or not he’s been Mirandized or not.
So you arrest Achmed, and Achmed clams up. Now what? I guess you think terrorists are so stupid they hadn’t thought about shutting the fuck up? “I was going to tell the agents of Satan everything, but then they told me I didn’t have to, so I demanded a lawyer instead.” Is that how you think it happens?
No, the imminent danger aspect of it was what I was referring to.
I’m not sure what coercive techniques have to do with this but he was giving information freely and it stopped with the announcement of a free lawyer. The dynamics of the conversation will never be the same with council sitting next to him anguishing over every word. It was a legal free shot that we will never get back.
That is EXACTLY what happened with the Detroit Christmas bomber.
Of course.
Again imagine you are totally innocent of a crime the police happen to think you may have committed.
Watch this YouTube video where a defense attorney and then a police interrogator tell an audience that you are fucked in an interrogation. If you do not exercise your rights there is a good chance the police will nail you. They seem to not really care overly much about truth or innocence…just a bust.
Part 1 (defense attorney)
Part 2 (police interrogator)
Very enlightening…I encourage you to watch it
That is how our system of justice works. Would you prefer a system where the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent? Would you prefer a system where some people are presumed guilty and some are presumed innocent? (Unequal justice under the law) Should some be allowed access to counsel and others denied it?
I understand that Senator Lieberman now thinks that people arrested for terrorist acts should lose their citizenship. (I hope that I am not misstating his position.)
What imminent danger is there in the case of the failed Christmas Day Bomber and the failed Times Square Bomber?
Other bombs or other planned attacks on America.
What’s the problem again? Is it that we need these guys to cooperate RIGHT NOW to prevent a ticking time bomb scenario? Or do we need them to cooperate so we can gather intelligence on whatever support network they had, if any?
What exactly do you think should happen? We dissappear the guy into a CIA secret prison, and torture him indefinately, and when we’ve squeezed him for everything just put a bullet in his brain and bury him in a shallow grave out in the desert?
You really want to give the government the power to seize, torture and kill anyone they like? This is your model for America?