Hames Jetfield wrote:
The fact is the suspect of the latest bombing attempt in Times Square is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. The fact that he was naturalized has nothing to do with it at all. Under the constitution he gets read his Miranda rights and is innocent until proven guilty. And it was bullshit for a great hero like John McCain to say that an AMERICAN CITIZEN shouldn't be given his rights under the constitution. This isn't a question of whether or not an "enemy combatant" deserves the rights that the constitution affords because this guy was a citizen.
Thanks for playing, but you're wrong. There is an exception to the rule. No American citizen has to be read their rights immediately.
A prime example of when this exception could occur, is with what just happened in NY. If they had reason to believe he had information about other bombs, or other terrorist attacks, imminent or future, they can detain him, question him, all without reading him his miranda rights.
Hames Jetfield wrote:
The fact is the suspect of the latest bombing attempt in Times Square is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. The fact that he was naturalized has nothing to do with it at all. Under the constitution he gets read his Miranda rights and is innocent until proven guilty. And it was bullshit for a great hero like John McCain to say that an AMERICAN CITIZEN shouldn't be given his rights under the constitution. This isn't a question of whether or not an "enemy combatant" deserves the rights that the constitution affords because this guy was a citizen.
Thanks for playing, but you're wrong. There is an exception to the rule. No American citizen has to be read their rights immediately.
A prime example of when this exception could occur, is with what just happened in NY. If they had reason to believe he had information about other bombs, or other terrorist attacks, imminent or future, they can detain him, question him, all without reading him his miranda rights.
There is no exception. There is a legal difference between detain and arrest. That's why they're not required to read them Miranda rights if one is only detained. He still has those rights enumerated in the Miranda warning even if they don't inform him of the fact. They can hold him only as long as he's willing to play along, unless they arrest him. Then they can bar him from leaving their custody but must give him his official warning. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-La ... AQ.html#13
Q: What are "Miranda rights?"
* A: Your Miranda rights include:
o You have the right to remain silent
o Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
o You have a right to have a lawyer present while you are questioned
o If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you
Miranda rights do not have to be recited prior to an arrest or to ask routine questions needed to establish your identity, such as your name and address. Generally, the police will "read your rights" if you're going to be questioned. If you're questioned without your lawyer being present and you haven't been read your rights, anything you say to the police likely can't be used as evidence against you in court.
Q: What's the difference between being arrested and being detained?
* A: "Arrested" means you have been taken into custody and can't leave. For example, if you've been handcuffed and placed in the back of a police cruiser, you've probably been arrested, even though the officer didn't say, "You're under arrest." This is because you can't leave the car without getting into more trouble.
You can be "detained" for a short period of time if a police officer believes you were involved in a crime or are about to commit a crime. For example, if you're standing on a street corner late at night in an area where a robbery had just occurred, a police officer may stop and ask you questions about why you're in the area, etc. This is not an arrest.
Hames Jetfield wrote:Oh I know what it is? Keith thought it was a tea partier who was responsible, and once again he came out looking like a fucking idiot just like anyone who said it was obviously a right winger, man those predictions are really working out for him quite well, especially since the left as of late are looking far more violent than the right.[/b]
The fact is the suspect of the latest bombing attempt in Times Square is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. The fact that he was naturalized has nothing to do with it at all. Under the constitution he gets read his Miranda rights and is innocent until proven guilty. And it was bullshit for a great hero like John McCain to say that an AMERICAN CITIZEN shouldn't be given his rights under the constitution. This isn't a question of whether or not an "enemy combatant" deserves the rights that the constitution affords because this guy was a citizen.
It's fucking sad that McCain has to sink to that level just because he is in a tough primary; he’s better than that. He won’t stand up for what he really believes in. Hell he let his campaign pick Sarah Palin rather than someone like Lieberman, who he wanted.[/quote]
I could give a shit about what McCain does for political reasons, I don't give a fuck about the welfare/health/rights of anyone who attempts to murder a shitload of innocent people. When that cocksucker puts his life on the line then I think He can say "maybe they should take away McCains rights", He's comparing a fucking war hero to a fucking terrorist, Fuck him.
So he sunk to a new low and picked a dingbat for a running mate, can anyone name something he's done that's on the level of trying to commit mass murder? Yeah disagree with his politics all You want, but defending a terrorist while blasting him? dosen't make sense, then again it's fucking olbermann.
IMO, When You do what that scumbag did You shouldn't have any rights, maybe I'm just an asshole but It's getting tiresome watching these cocksuckers kill or try to kill alot of american citizens, and just as tiresome hearing other Americans try and defend them. They're obviously not paying too much attention, they need to just step back and watch because all the various "baggers" popping up are probably gonna end up doing even more damage to each other and more than likley innocent people that don't give a fuck about their respective agendas.
dtmfs wrote:IMO, When You do what that scumbag did You shouldn't have any rights, maybe I'm just an asshole but It's getting tiresome watching these cocksuckers kill or try to kill alot of american citizens, and just as tiresome hearing other Americans try and defend them. They're obviously not paying too much attention, they need to just step back and watch because all the various "baggers" popping up are probably gonna end up doing even more damage to each other and more than likley innocent people that don't give a fuck about their respective agendas.
Nobody's defending that asshole. They're defending due process, which is one of those things that makes America what it is. Without due process, our legal system pretty closely resembles what they have in most third world shitholes. It's one of the things that make us civilized people in a fucked up world.
dtmfs wrote:IMO, When You do what that scumbag did You shouldn't have any rights, maybe I'm just an asshole but It's getting tiresome watching these cocksuckers kill or try to kill alot of american citizens, and just as tiresome hearing other Americans try and defend them. They're obviously not paying too much attention, they need to just step back and watch because all the various "baggers" popping up are probably gonna end up doing even more damage to each other and more than likley innocent people that don't give a fuck about their respective agendas.
if the government is so sure this guy is guilty, then they should have no problem proving it in court, then they can put him away for life. Sure the guy is a scumbag, but he's also an American citizen and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Even scumbags like this guy or Timothy Mcveigh are entitled to due process, a lawyer and a fair trial.
dtmfs wrote:I could give a shit about what McCain does for political reasons, I don't give a fuck about the welfare/health/rights of anyone who attempts to murder a shitload of innocent people.
It doesn't matter who's shitbag or saint. That's what the Constitution's for, protecting everyone's rights because you might one day find yourself the fucking cocksucker no one likes.
dtmfs wrote:When that cocksucker puts his life on the line then I think He can say "maybe they should take away McCains rights", He's comparing a fucking war hero to a fucking terrorist, Fuck him.
I don't get this comparison thing.
dtmfs wrote:So he sunk to a new low and picked a dingbat for a running mate, can anyone name something he's done that's on the level of trying to commit mass murder?
It seems McCain's political career can be summed up with "So he sunk to a new low".
dtmfs wrote: Yeah disagree with his politics all You want, but defending a terrorist while blasting him? dosen't make sense, then again it's fucking olbermann.
Saying McCain's wrong for shitting on the Constitution he once swore to protect and defend is wrong?
dtmfs wrote:IMO, When You do what that scumbag did You shouldn't have any rights, maybe I'm just an asshole but It's getting tiresome watching these cocksuckers kill or try to kill alot of american citizens, and just as tiresome hearing other Americans try and defend them. They're obviously not paying too much attention, they need to just step back and watch because all the various "baggers" popping up are probably gonna end up doing even more damage to each other and more than likley innocent people that don't give a fuck about their respective agendas.
You, my friend, seem to favor a constant state of martial law. I agree with you that both Olbermann and Limbaugh are poison, but McCain and anyone who agrees with him on this subject are wrong. We are a country of laws and if we go taking them away from certain citizens in certain cases we run the risk of eroding our constitution away from within, in the name of security--which is only a false sense of security anyway. A sure way to fuck up the country is to put emotion ahead of reason and that seems to be what you're doing.
I get what You guys are saying but it's fucking hard to even worry about that shit even though I should stop and think, watching the politicians bicker about shit instead of working together to stop these assholes isen't helping matters, and neither is having people wish it would've been radical Americans( take your pick which side, people from both have eluded that it would've been better to see the other side guilty to help their party), shit like that just makes me sick.
MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:[
There is no exception. There is a legal difference between detain and arrest. That's why they're not required to read them Miranda rights if one is only detained. He still has those rights enumerated in the Miranda warning even if they don't inform him of the fact. They can hold him only as long as he's willing to play along, unless they arrest him. Then they can bar him from leaving their custody but must give him his official warning. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-La ... AQ.html#13
Q: What are "Miranda rights?"
* A: Your Miranda rights include:
o You have the right to remain silent
o Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
o You have a right to have a lawyer present while you are questioned
o If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you
Miranda rights do not have to be recited prior to an arrest or to ask routine questions needed to establish your identity, such as your name and address. Generally, the police will "read your rights" if you're going to be questioned. If you're questioned without your lawyer being present and you haven't been read your rights, anything you say to the police likely can't be used as evidence against you in court.
Q: What's the difference between being arrested and being detained?
* A: "Arrested" means you have been taken into custody and can't leave. For example, if you've been handcuffed and placed in the back of a police cruiser, you've probably been arrested, even though the officer didn't say, "You're under arrest." This is because you can't leave the car without getting into more trouble.
You can be "detained" for a short period of time if a police officer believes you were involved in a crime or are about to commit a crime. For example, if you're standing on a street corner late at night in an area where a robbery had just occurred, a police officer may stop and ask you questions about why you're in the area, etc. This is not an arrest.
Wrong again. It's titled "The Public Safety Exception Rule". It was used in this case.
dtmfs wrote:I could give a shit about what McCain does for political reasons, I don't give a fuck about the welfare/health/rights of anyone who attempts to murder a shitload of innocent people.
It doesn't matter who's shitbag or saint. That's what the Constitution's for, protecting everyone's rights because you might one day find yourself the fucking cocksucker no one likes.
dtmfs wrote:When that cocksucker puts his life on the line then I think He can say "maybe they should take away McCains rights", He's comparing a fucking war hero to a fucking terrorist, Fuck him.
I don't get this comparison thing.
dtmfs wrote:So he sunk to a new low and picked a dingbat for a running mate, can anyone name something he's done that's on the level of trying to commit mass murder?
It seems McCain's political career can be summed up with "So he sunk to a new low".
dtmfs wrote: Yeah disagree with his politics all You want, but defending a terrorist while blasting him? dosen't make sense, then again it's fucking olbermann.
Saying McCain's wrong for shitting on the Constitution he once swore to protect and defend is wrong?
It's funny to hear liberals talk about the constitution after the results of the health care debacle.
Saying McCain's wrong for shitting on the Constitution he once swore to protect and defend is wrong?
It's funny to hear liberals talk about the constitution after the results of the health care debacle.
It's never funny when fools like you brush it off like it's irrelevant or an inconvenience. Oh yeah, that's capital 'C' in Constitution, ese. Show some respect, boy.
Ugmo wrote:Once again, just because the Republicans get schooled on something doesn't mean the Constitution has been breached.
to be fair, there are some questions about the Constitutionality of the health care mandate, not everyone thinks the government has the power to force everyone to do business with private companies. We've been back and forth on this topic plenty and I don't want to turn this into a threadjack, I'm just pointing out that the Constitutionality of the mandate, and the issues of states' rights is being questioned by a lot of people, and they're not all republicans
That's a matter for the courts to decide though. I think a lot of it is sour grapes on the part of people who lost a political battle and don't want to accept that.
Ugmo wrote:That's a matter for the courts to decide though. I think a lot of it is sour grapes on the part of people who lost a political battle and don't want to accept that.
yeah, but it's not sour grapes across the board, and it's not like court challenges are an exclusively republican or conservative tactic, the dems have done the same thing in the past. Some people opposed to the mandate have brought up very valid points about the mandate since the bill's inception, and continue to do so, for some of us, it's not about who passed the bill, it's the bill itself, I'd feel the same way about it if the republicans had passed it
Ugmo wrote:That's a matter for the courts to decide though. I think a lot of it is sour grapes on the part of people who lost a political battle and don't want to accept that.
yeah, but it's not sour grapes across the board, and it's not like court challenges are an exclusively republican or conservative tactic, the dems have done the same thing in the past. Some people opposed to the mandate have brought up very valid points about the mandate since the bill's inception, and continue to do so, for some of us, it's not about who passed the bill, it's the bill itself, I'd feel the same way about it if the republicans had passed it
And you would have felt that way about it if the Republicans had pursued it in 1994 (when they first came up with it!). I'll tell you what I think: those like yourself who don't care about the political aspect but are concerned about the bill's contitutionality are going to be abandoned by the Republicans in that battle, because the Republicans don't care about the policy as much as they care about the politics. They talked a good game of "repeal the deal", but now that they've seen that that slogan is bad politics, they've quietly abandoned that fight and are moving on to other things.
And you would have felt that way about it if the Republicans had pursued it in 1994 (when they first came up with it!). I'll tell you what I think: those like yourself who don't care about the political aspect but are concerned about the bill's contitutionality are going to be abandoned by the Republicans in that battle, because the Republicans don't care about the policy as much as they care about the politics. They talked a good game of "repeal the deal", but now that they've seen that that slogan is bad politics, they've quietly abandoned that fight and are moving on to other things.
no argument there, I'm not counting on the republicans for anything, the court challenges aren't going to be republican driven necessarily, maybe some state AGs fighting for the rights of their state, but it's also likely some individuals with deep pockets may file cases too, hopefully these cases will start working their way through the court system and it won't really matter whether or not the republicans have moved on to another fight
Ugmo wrote:Once again, just because the Republicans get schooled on something doesn't mean the Constitution has been breached.
to be fair, there are some questions about the Constitutionality of the health care mandate,
Yeah, and there are questions about whether or not our President was born in America, and if 9/11 actually was a government conspiracy. Lots of idiots have bullshit questions about lots of stuff.
Ugmo wrote:Once again, just because the Republicans get schooled on something doesn't mean the Constitution has been breached.
to be fair, there are some questions about the Constitutionality of the health care mandate,
Yeah, and there are questions about whether or not our President was born in America, and if 9/11 actually was a government conspiracy. Lots of idiots have bullshit questions about lots of stuff.
but there's no conspiracy when it comes to the mandate, some people simply feel that it's unconstitutional for the government to dictate that it's citizens have to purchase something from a private company, others say it is Constitutional, the courts will ultimately end up deciding. I don't see the comparison between a legal opinion and a couple of conspiracy theories
Ugmo wrote:That's a matter for the courts to decide though. I think a lot of it is sour grapes on the part of people who lost a political battle and don't want to accept that.
