Pingback: Hot Air » McCain: Giving Shahzad his Miranda rights would be “a serious mistake”
- Tyler
The “right to remain silent” is ACTUALLY the 5th Amendment, so that's what I find to be so funny about the argument as to whether or not to give this guy that right or not. People can voluntarily waive those rights, but the police are not allowed to INTIMIDATE people into testifying against themselves which is why the Miranda vs. Arizona law case was upheld therefore creating the Miranda Warning which is basically a REMINDER of one's 5th Amendment rights.
- KeninMontana
Most people are unaware of the fact that in most jurisdictions you can be held,without charge,for up to 72 hours. The authorities are not required to “mirandize” an individual until charged or actually arrested (ie:charged with a specific crime) this why judges will ask if an individual appearing before them at an arraignment if they have been read thier rights and if not will be briefed on their rights prior to being charged. Likewise with “Failure to Identify” (refusing to produce identification), a crime, for which you can be held until your identity is established. I'm not stating a position here merely examples of established laws that have withstood challenges and have been in use for a long time.
- http://mitchblatt.com mitch
I notice that this guy is a terrorist “suspect,” so why should he not get the right to prove he's not a terrorist? He'll he probably is a terrorist, and if he is, we will easily be able to prove it in court. He's even an American citizen. Do Republicans not believe in freedom anymore?
- Tyler
Just wait until they decide that it's okay to indefinitely detain Americans as well as “war” criminals. Good thing they can't shackle our spirits.
- Tyler
Here's something else you might find if you read the 5th Amendment…or ANY amendment for that matter of the Constitution. It talks about “persons,” not “citizens.” So…even non-citizens are granted rights unless they are actual war criminals. If you looked at the Glenn Beck deal on this just below, you'll hear him say “Then let's DECLARE it.” On other words, the current “wars” right now aren't even legal because they haven't been properly declared.
- http://mitchblatt.com mitch
I think our current wars/conflicts are legal because Congress voted for most of them. Even in the Constitution, the President is allowed to dispatch troops to foreign countries for a certain time frame without Congressional approval. But I see in Iraq and Afghanistan that Congress did approve the use of force and voted to send troops there, so I think that's legal, even if it's not an official war.
- KeninMontana
I heard something on the radio earlier attributed to AG Holder, that in order to be classified as a terrorist in the administration's eyes you have to have committed at least two acts of terrorism to be called a “terrorist”. Sounds nuts but I would not put it past the bureuacrats in DC.
- williamm
MSNBC's Contessa Brewer – I'm Sorry Times Square Suspect Has Islamic Ties
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRmPTN07Iz4&feat…
she probably wanted it to be a Tea Partier.
- Tyler
Right…which is why I call the whole “War on Terror” nothing more than “playing police.” We DO treat this thing as a war and the criminals we capture “war criminals” when it's CONVENIENT, but even as you just said it…it's NOT OFFICIAL therefore NOT LEGAL to indefinitely detain them without trial.
- Tyler
People like my dad try to argue, “Well, they've got it better in Guantanamo than they had it in their home country.”
If that's the case, then that STRENGTHENS MY argument for not leaving them in there indefinitely.
- Tyler
According to Judge Napolitano in the Fox & Friends clip Scoop has here, that was done during the Bush administration.
- Tyler
Apparently New York's mayor wanted it to be also when the first possibility to come out of his mouth was “someone who was angry over Obama's healthcare.”
Posted by 
The Right Scoop on May 4th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 13 Comments
The Right Scoop on May 4th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 13 CommentsWow. H/T to Real Clear Politics. John McCain actually advocates ‘legal ways’ of delaying the mirandizing of Faisal Shahzad. He’s not saying we shouldn’t mirandize him, but obviously he falls on the same side of the argument as Brian Kilmeade – interrogate first, read rights later. Perhaps Glenn Beck should get ol’ John McCain on the radio show just on this issue. Wow, that’d be awesome.
In an age where our rights seem to be dwindling away due to the encroachment of big government, we must stand up for them every chance we get. Faisal Shahzad is an American citizen and is afforded the same rights as everyone else. End of story.
Enjoy:
Pingback: Hot Air » McCain: Giving Shahzad his Miranda rights would be “a serious mistake”
- http://mitchblatt.com
- http://mitchblatt.com
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.