Skip to main content

View Diary: Miranda Rights and the Bombing Suspect (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the tougher question (0+ / 0-)

    Is this situation serious enough that any of us would accept coercive interrogation techniques as a further means of prying information?  If he requests a lawyer, would you tolerating one not being provided to him (so long as the statements aren't introduced, etc)?

    •  I hope that very few of us would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      answer that affirmatively.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:24:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  NO! He is a U.S. citizen (although I don't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      really think that should make a legal difference).


      No deprivation of legal counsel!

      Assholes Buckwheat and McCain have declared that he should be considered an "enemy combatant"!

      This country has become so degraded!

      He is a U.S. citizen.  He committed crimes in the United States.  He must be tried in U.S. courts and given all of his legal rights as a citizen.

      I think this really is terrorism, so I'm not concerned that the FBI has taken the lead and will try him in federal court, if he survives.  

      Sadly, the cops apparently shot him up some more after they realized he was in the boat, and then waited 1.75 hours to approach the boat while he was bleeding to death, so we may never know much of anything about this disaster.  

      Needless to say, I completely understand the caution of the cops...and yet, I think they waited too long.

    •  No to the coercion. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, AaronInSanDiego

      There is no evidence that it is effective, and lots of evidence that it isn't. So it doesn't actually matter either how serious the crime is, or how imperative it might be that information be extracted.

      As for the lawyer .... This is a bit strange.

      My suspicion is that this 19 year old will be only too willing to talk when he is not sedated. There is virtually nothing to be gained by not reading the Miranda rights because if willing to talk he would probably agree to talk without a lawyer. If he knows his rights and stands on them, then not Mirandizing him makes no difference, except to the prosecution.

      He doesn't lose his rights just because they were not read to him. The imminence is perfectly described in the public safety exception, and it appears not to apply here.

      I think the whole kerfuffle about Miranda is a political smokescreen. It allows the prosecuting authority to appear to be tough on a terrorist without it causing any harm or detriment to anyone. What it does is deflect much right wing criticism while allowing professional law officers to get on with their jobs.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:16:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site