(CNN) – The decision to read Miranda rights to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the midst of an interrogation was called “disgraceful” Sunday by a leading Republican, who took aim at U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for not opposing the decision.

U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told CNN he “totally disagreed” with the decision of a magistrate judge to administer the rights during a hearing last Monday, more than two days after Tsarnaev was captured in Watertown, Massachusetts. On Saturday, Holder told CNN the move was “totally consistent” and appropriate.

“This was not required by American law,” King said. “The fact is the FBI was only 16 hours into an interrogation. They had already gotten some significant information, but much more was still not there. Who else was involved? What was his mother's role? Did his father have any role? Where did the radicalization start? How did it start? Are there any other conspirators out there? Who was part of it? Who assisted him in any way?”

When he was first captured, Tsarnaev wasn’t immediately read his Miranda warnings, which advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights of remaining silent, access to an attorney regardless of financial circumstances, and the warning that any statements can be used to aid their prosecution.

So you sympathize with terrorists then?

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you sympathize with terrorists then?

Standing for the rights of Americans is sympathizing with terrorists now? You are more dangerous than you understand. Stupid people like you don't deserve your rights.

It is my understanding that once charges are filled then the Miranda rights are compelled by law to be read. The only legal way around it was to delay the filling of the charges.

All Holder had to do was not file the charges.

Treason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you sympathize with terrorists then?
>
> Standing for the rights of Americans is
> sympathizing with terrorists now? You are more
> dangerous than you understand. Stupid people like
> you don't deserve your rights.


most conservatards are terrorists.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Holder had to do was not file the charges.

They have 72 hours to file the charges.

All libraries love terrorists. Terror is the liberals political weapon of choice.

Treason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you sympathize with terrorists then?
>
> Standing for the rights of Americans is
> sympathizing with terrorists now? You are more
> dangerous than you understand. Stupid people like
> you don't deserve your rights.


Youre not standing for the rights of Americans.

You dont honestly believe that Miranda is what gives you those right do you? Those rights are present with out without Miranda being read.

Not to mention the fact they dont need a single word he said to get a conviction so it just flat out didnt matter.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Treason Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So you sympathize with terrorists then?
> >
> > Standing for the rights of Americans is
> > sympathizing with terrorists now? You are more
> > dangerous than you understand. Stupid people
> like
> > you don't deserve your rights.
>
>
> Youre not standing for the rights of Americans.
>
> You dont honestly believe that Miranda is what
> gives you those right do you? Those rights are
> present with out without Miranda being read.
>
> Not to mention the fact they dont need a single
> word he said to get a conviction so it just flat
> out didnt matter.


Correct. Same rights apply and information cannot be used in court but the law provides for 72 hours to attempt to get information related to any further imminent public threats.

Nobody is suggesting that any rights should be waived. They're saying that they should have taken advantage of the full time provided for by the law before reading.

Miss Represented Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Correct. Same rights apply and information cannot
> be used in court but the law provides for 72 hours
> to attempt to get information related to any
> further imminent public threats.
>
> Nobody is suggesting that any rights should be
> waived. They're saying that they should have
> taken advantage of the full time provided for by
> the law before reading.


Correct. Rights are to protect you from police intrusions and make sure you have the right person not to let the guilty go free.

Has OBozo read Miranda rights to the scum he has disintegrated in the desert with drone strikes?

Oh no, he hasn't.


But "they hate us" because of Gitmo.

Liberal faggots, please shut up at least until you can explain your hero a little better.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

No American supports terrorism, so let's not be that stupid.

What republicans and conservatives refuse to accept is that laws are to be applied EQUALLY to every one.

You can't say, "Well we're sure THIS guy did it so we are going to throw out his constitutional rights and due process."

We'll just rig his trial so we can convict him.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has OBozo read Miranda rights to the scum he has
> disintegrated in the desert with drone strikes?
>
> Oh no, he hasn't.
>
>
> But "they hate us" because of Gitmo.
>
> Liberal faggots, please shut up at least until you
> can explain your hero a little better.

Dude, easy on the drugs.

Droned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No American supports terrorism, so let's not be
> that stupid.
>
> What republicans and conservatives refuse to
> accept is that laws are to be applied EQUALLY to
> every one.

Except to the New Black Panthers, illegal immigrants, Democrats, Federally elected politicians, civil servants who owe back taxes

Gotta love when libtards reveal their ignorance on how our legal system actually works.

Besides, I make no apologies for being a "hypocrite". I don't worship the U.S. Constitution or traditional "liberal" ideals. I worship common sense and justice.

I don't give a fuck if a subversive 5th column muslime or communist is an American citizen. They all should be banned from living in the Western world.

American citizenship means nothing now that libtards have allowed and encouraged every 3rd world mongoloid on the planet to exploit our citizenship process.

Besides, the only Constitutional rights I really care about are the First and Second Amendment. And those amendments still don't go far enough. Even "hate speech" should be protected - everywhere. And what the Second Amendment should really say is that you have a fundamental right to self-defense - everywhere - whether armed or unarmed.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you sympathize with terrorists then?


So you sympathize with new world order cults?

sosososososos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So you sympathize with new world order cults?


So obviously you wear a tinfoil hat?

I dont know if its more humorous or sad that you liberals seem to think that reading Miranda rights is what gives you those rights.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sosososososos Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So you sympathize with new world order cults?
>
>
> So obviously you wear a tinfoil hat?
>
> I dont know if its more humorous or sad that you
> liberals seem to think that reading Miranda rights
> is what gives you those rights.

Liberal Logic must to be somebody who has never graduated from college.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sosososososos Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So you sympathize with new world order cults?
>
>
> So obviously you wear a tinfoil hat?
>
> I dont know if its more humorous or sad that you
> liberals seem to think that reading Miranda rights
> is what gives you those rights.

Liberal Logic must to be somebody who has never graduated from college.

"It is my understanding that once charges are filled then the Miranda rights are compelled by law to be read"
...
You understand poorly.
Miranda warnings are issued prior to any statement to the police to preserve the admissibility of one's own statements only against oneself in criminal proceedings.

In other words, this bozo didn't need Mirandizing - he had already been charged based on outside evidence (video/pics/etc), and was being questioned about things not pertaining to his charges (other bombs/bombers/parents/etc).

CNN "writers" should know enough about the fundamentals of law... aw, who am I kidding. They're reporters. Grades weren't good enough to get a BS.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Correct. Rights are to protect you from police
> intrusions and make sure you have the right person
> not to let the guilty go free.

Now think about that for a moment. Just about every member of Congress who voted for the Bill of Rights had previously committed treason against their lawful sovereign, George III. Limitations on searches, right to grand jury indictment and trial by jury, right to keep silent. These are not things designed to insure that the right person is caught. These are things designed to protect the guilty.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> I dont know if its more humorous or sad that you
> liberals seem to think that reading Miranda rights
> is what gives you those rights.

You obviously have these rights at all times. However, the law does require that you be "Mirandized" and afforded an attorney. Since the majority of our incarcerated population is black males, they probably are unaware of their rights.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > I dont know if its more humorous or sad that
> you
> > liberals seem to think that reading Miranda
> rights
> > is what gives you those rights.
>
> You obviously have these rights at all times.
> However, the law does require that you be
> "Mirandized" and afforded an attorney. Since the
> majority of our incarcerated population is black
> males, they probably are unaware of their rights.

+1 You're right there buddy. Black males are some stupid motherfuckers LOL

"However, the law does require that you be "Mirandized" and afforded an attorney"

Only on TV.

Jess1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "However, the law does require that you be
> "Mirandized" and afforded an attorney"
>
> Only on TV.

Miranda vs. Arizona and Gideon vs. Wainwright.

YC,
You may wish to read them b4 you cite them.

Jess1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YC,
> You may wish to read them b4 you cite them.


Gideon vs. Wainwright extends the protections of Powell vs. Alabama and Betts vs. Brady to indigent defendants. All of these cases combined state that a defendant is entitled to a lawyer, regardless of his crime.

Miranda vs. Arizona's major opinion, from Chief Justice Earl Warren, states the following: "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."

"defendant is entitled to a lawyer" - certainly, but public defense can be (and is) refused. It's not a given.

I said the same as Warren - it's a case of "if you're being questioned about your own charges" - which in the case of Djoker, he wasn't (at least according to news reports). This line of allwable questioning vis a vis Miranda has been well established over the past four decades.

The word "afforded" means that you have one available if you want one. You've been arguing with me over nothing.

You said Mirandizing was "required" when it is not, especially in this case.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Correct. Rights are to protect you from police
> > intrusions and make sure you have the right
> person
> > not to let the guilty go free.
>
> Now think about that for a moment. Just about
> every member of Congress who voted for the Bill of
> Rights had previously committed treason against
> their lawful sovereign, George III. Limitations
> on searches, right to grand jury indictment and
> trial by jury, right to keep silent. These are
> not things designed to insure that the right
> person is caught. These are things designed to
> protect the guilty.


They arent designed to protect the guilty, had they lost the revolutionary war they would have been tried and hanged. Do you think they just openly accepted British sympathizers after the war and that Benedict Arnold was told not to worry about it?

Theyre specifically designed to make sure you have the right person and have every safe guard in place to make sure someone isnt falsely convicted. Nothing you just named is any protection for the guilty it just makes the cops work harder to get their evidence, theres no provision saying if your guilty you wont be punished we just wanted to know who it was. Only cruel and unusual punishment is to protect the guilty.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > I dont know if its more humorous or sad that
> you
> > liberals seem to think that reading Miranda
> rights
> > is what gives you those rights.
>
> You obviously have these rights at all times.
> However, the law does require that you be
> "Mirandized" and afforded an attorney. Since the
> majority of our incarcerated population is black
> males, they probably are unaware of their rights.

You only have to do that if you are questioning a person who is under arrest. If theyre free to leave you dont have to let them know, if you arent questioning them you dont have to let them know. If they start talking you also dont have to stop them and can just let them run their mouths.

But again it didnt matter because the questions werent trying to build evidence for convicting them for the bombing, they didnt need anything for that. It was to see if others are involved or what ties they had. If you dont care if you can use the information like in this case it doesnt matter.

Plus it was abundantly clear how they were going to be charged anyway considering what they had done.

Its true that in most cases you do have to read them the rights because its not assumed they know them, there are exceptions such as a police officer or attorney being arrested where you dont have to read them because they know them. But again all of that only applies if you plan to use the information you get to prosecute that person.