Phoebe Vet Ernesto Miranda was not an American. According to Wikipaedia he was born in Mesa, AZ. I believe that would make him a citizen..
Ernesto Miranda was not an American.
According to Wikipaedia he was born in Mesa, AZ. I believe that would make him a citizen..
Norm
According to Wikipaedia he was born in Mesa, AZ.
Convicted Onehat sense, the terrorists are destroying the true America.
Well, hey. This is America. You have every right to your opinion. But frankly I will be content to be one of the sheeple lining up quietly to be inspected and hoping to keep all of my arms and legs intact.
The FBI isn't concerned about proving that this is the perp. They want to pump him for information about any possible co-conspirators, financial connections, etc., etc., et al. With the volume of surveillence video and the number of eyewitnesses available, they don't need a word out of his mouth to convict him.
There is a long history of wrongdoers who traded information for lighter sentences or freedom. From the broader aspect, it's more important to national security to define the web than it is to crush an individual spider.
Chuck [MSgt(Ret) USAF]
By not following our own laws, creating special exemptions or simply ignoring the constitutional amendments, we become as barbaric and un-just as the very terrorist we fight.
The Miranda opinion makes no distinction between a citizen and non-citizen.
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus erikem Speculation on my part: If there is evidence that the brothers were not acting alone, then allowing the brother to contact someone else could pose a security risk - a lesson from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. What do you mean by "allowing the brother to contact someone else"? Do you mean speaking to a lawyer? I definitely can see why the bombing would be considered a national security threat. There does seem to be an undercurrent of information indicating that the two suspects were not acting alone, and that has international implications. The attack was fairly obviously a terrorist attack. So the gravity of the situation might call for some unsual suspension of rights.
erikem Speculation on my part: If there is evidence that the brothers were not acting alone, then allowing the brother to contact someone else could pose a security risk - a lesson from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Speculation on my part: If there is evidence that the brothers were not acting alone, then allowing the brother to contact someone else could pose a security risk - a lesson from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
What do you mean by "allowing the brother to contact someone else"? Do you mean speaking to a lawyer?
I definitely can see why the bombing would be considered a national security threat. There does seem to be an undercurrent of information indicating that the two suspects were not acting alone, and that has international implications. The attack was fairly obviously a terrorist attack. So the gravity of the situation might call for some unsual suspension of rights.
From my sketchy understanding of the Miranda ruling, nothing he says during the interrogation can be used against him in a court of law. Presumably there is enough evidence that the prosecution would not need any testimony from him.
erikem Bucyrus erikem Speculation on my part: If there is evidence that the brothers were not acting alone, then allowing the brother to contact someone else could pose a security risk - a lesson from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. What do you mean by "allowing the brother to contact someone else"? Do you mean speaking to a lawyer? I definitely can see why the bombing would be considered a national security threat. There does seem to be an undercurrent of information indicating that the two suspects were not acting alone, and that has international implications. The attack was fairly obviously a terrorist attack. So the gravity of the situation might call for some unsual suspension of rights. .Presumably there is enough evidence that the prosecution would not need any testimony from him.
.Presumably there is enough evidence that the prosecution would not need any testimony from him.
So does that mean that he cannont testify as his own defense because the evidence is os overwhelming against him? That seems like pre-judging the trial.
Bucyrus erikem .Presumably there is enough evidence that the prosecution would not need any testimony from him. So does that mean that he cannont testify as his own defense because the evidence is os overwhelming against him? That seems like pre-judging the trial.
erikem .Presumably there is enough evidence that the prosecution would not need any testimony from him.
He most certainly can testify in his own defense, though it is uncertain that it would be wise for him to do so (defendants can be their own worst enemies in a trial). There is nothing wrong with the prosecution coming to the conclusion that the evidence is strong, as it can help in plea bargaining. If he pleads not guilty, then the onus is still on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
I doubt the FBI is likely to get anything useful from this punk. I suspect he and his brother were free-lancing the whole operation. Trained terrorists or saboteurs would have had a solid "after we do it, then what?" plan, assuming they weren't going to commit suicide during the act. At any rate, no terrorist organization's claiming credit for the Boston bombings, even peripheral credit.
I imagine the FBI interrogation's going to go like this:
"Why'd you do it son?"
"I duh-know...."
Miranda says that anything you say can be held against you in court. So if a suspects talks to the police with Miranda, what he says can be used against him in court. And without Miranda, what he says can be used against him in court. So what difference does Miranda make?
I guess it only makes a difference with suspects who do not know that what they say to the investigators can be held against them in court. Therefore, if the suspect does know that what they say can be held against him in court, Miranda makes no difference.
My guess is that with or without Miranda, this particular suspect will say a lot to the interrogators because he is fighting for a cause. I suspect that the questions they ask the suspect and his answers together would total at least 250,000 words.
Bucyrus Miranda says that anything you say can be held against you in court. So if a suspects talks to the police with Miranda, what he says can be used against him in court. And without Miranda, what he says can be used against him in court. So what difference does Miranda make?
If and only if the suspect was advised of his rights beforehand. From what I understand of the Miranda ruling, nothing the suspect says can be used against him/her if they aren't advised of their rights prior to their talking.
Keep in mind that most people who are arrested can post bail, but some suspects are considered dangerous enough that bail will be denied.
John WR Convicted Onehat sense, the terrorists are destroying the true America. Well, hey. This is America. You have every right to your opinion. But frankly I will be content to be one of the sheeple lining up quietly to be inspected and hoping to keep all of my arms and legs intact.
Randy
erikem Bucyrus Miranda says that anything you say can be held against you in court. So if a suspects talks to the police with Miranda, what he says can be used against him in court. And without Miranda, what he says can be used against him in court. So what difference does Miranda make? If and only if the suspect was advised of his rights beforehand. From what I understand of the Miranda ruling, nothing the suspect says can be used against him/her if they aren't advised of their rights prior to their talking. Keep in mind that most people who are arrested can post bail, but some suspects are considered dangerous enough that bail will be denied.
If that is the case, then the apparent reason for withholding the Miranda notice is to permit the suspect to talk freely to investigators about the crime in exchange for the legal system not using his pre-trial testimony against him in the trial. This would presumeably encourage the suspect to answer questions ahead of the trial with the hope that the discussion will reveal information leading to more suspects who may be involved. That makes sense to me.
So the withholding of Miranda is just part of a procedure to grant a sort of immunity to the suspect from being prosecuted for his pre-trial discussion of the case.
Someone mentioned that no group has come forward to claim 'credit' for this attack.
Suppose (name A) of (group B) were to boast of this success on a radical website. Before you could say, "Not such a smart move," some Predator pilot would be setting up to put a missile in his ear.
The best thing about this whole affair is that the 'terror' aspect came to an abrupt, final (and in one case fatal) end - on prime time TV. Hard to stay scared of someone who's in custody in the critical care unit of a hospital. Angry? YES! Scared? No.
Chuck [MSgt(ret) USAF]
Quite true Chuck, but you gotta find 'em before a Predator can zap 'em. Not impossible, but easier said than done.
Wayne
Randy StahlIf the founding fathers felt that way, the declaration of independence would be a blank page. The true America is being destroyed by Americans.
Perhaps so, Randy, perhaps so. But where would Thomas Jefferson have been had he not had a couple of hundred slaves to help him carry out all of his noble sentiments?
John
Apparently, the issue of withholding Miranda in this case is quite murky and controversial. There is a fair amount of opposition to it. There is also an option under consideration in which the suspect will be tried as an enemy combatant in a venue other than civilian court.
Here is an article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/20/tsarneav-arrest-miranda-warning/2099353/
We have not yet gotten to the biggest element of this bombing event yet. That will be the gigantic national debate over the motive. The authorities are going to tell us that this was not terrorism of the kind that brought down the World Trade Towers.
There is an odd background story related to this incident that 99% of the news media is not covering. That is the story of the Saudi national who was detained in relation to the bombing. It has been decided to deport him on Tuesday and the cause is now classified. But it was said to be on a national security basis. It was also reported that the language in the deportation order says he was linked to the Boston bombing. This was the guy that they initially announced has been arrested for the bombing before they changed that story.
Well one thing...They did shut down MBTA commuter trains and AMTRAK. How much did that cost people in lost wages and business?$$$$$$. Now everytime there is a scare this will disrupt stuff. This will be more of a motive not to do business in major metro areas exp. ones like Boston that need it the most
What a mess. The real issue is despite hundreds of Boston Police, National Guard, Bomb Dogs and billions of dollars in Homeland Security $$$$$$$ someone was able to walk right up the middle and blow up not only innocent people but our reputation as being a secure country before the whole world.
BonasWhat a mess. The real issue is despite hundreds of Boston Police, National Guard, Bomb Dogs and billions of dollars in Homeland Security $$$$$$$ someone was able to walk right up the middle and blow up not only innocent people but our reputation as being a secure country before the whole world.
I agree that a pertinent question goes to the failure of security at the Boston Marathon. They have a massive public sporting event expected to draw crowds, and they provide police security for public protection.
Then, people carrying backpacks containing pressure cookers filled with gun powder and scrap metal are allowed to freely circulate into the crowd and plant the explosives. Proper security at a crowd event has got to assure that the crowd is protected from that sort of thing.
Bucyrus BonasWhat a mess. The real issue is despite hundreds of Boston Police, National Guard, Bomb Dogs and billions of dollars in Homeland Security $$$$$$$ someone was able to walk right up the middle and blow up not only innocent people but our reputation as being a secure country before the whole world. I agree that a pertinent question goes to the failure of security at the Boston Marathon. They have a massive public sporting event expected to draw crowds, and they provide police security for public protection. Then, people carrying backpacks containing pressure cookers filled with gun powder and scrap metal are allowed to freely circulate into the crowd and plant the explosives. Proper security at a crowd event has got to assure that the crowd is protected from that sort of thing.
You're in the middle of a city, and you want to keep people from having backpacks? Even though the marathon was going on, many in the city still have to live their normal, working lives.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmannYou're in the middle of a city, and you want to keep people from having backpacks? Even though the marathon was going on, many in the city still have to live their normal, working lives.
You either have security or you have backpacks. You can't have both.
Bucyrus zugmannYou're in the middle of a city, and you want to keep people from having backpacks? Even though the marathon was going on, many in the city still have to live their normal, working lives. You either have security or you have backpacks. You can't have both.
Then they'll find another way. You're chasing unicorns again, Bucyrus.
zugmann Bucyrus zugmannYou're in the middle of a city, and you want to keep people from having backpacks? Even though the marathon was going on, many in the city still have to live their normal, working lives. You either have security or you have backpacks. You can't have both. Then they'll find another way.
Bucyrus Well then security is impossible, so we should stop funding it.
It's all a matter of balancing and degrees, Mr. Bucyrus. Not everything is all or none.
Bucyrus zugmann Bucyrus zugmannYou're in the middle of a city, and you want to keep people from having backpacks? Even though the marathon was going on, many in the city still have to live their normal, working lives. You either have security or you have backpacks. You can't have both. Then they'll find another way. I don't understand what you mean. Who will have to find another way for what? Terrorists will not need to find another way as long as we let them bring bombs into the crowds.
You're not that stupid, Bucyrus. So stop pretending. I'm moving on.
zugmann Bucyrus Well then security is impossible, so we should stop funding it. It's all a matter of balancing and degrees, Mr. Bucyrus. Not everything is all or none.
It is one thing for something to escape detection, but allowing backpacks means there is no security. Security may not be all or none, as you say, but this was none.
No Backpacks... no problem, a grenade can fit a pocket... I guess the solution is public nudity, remember , you asked for it .
Body cavity search anyone?
The only solution is total nudity! Offers very few place to hide anything, and even then in minimal quantities.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.