Will Osama Bin laden be Read his Miranda Rights

Yurt said:
not true....if you are going to give civil criminal courts jurisdiction over them, you would not be able to interrogate him without miranda rights and if he requests a lawyer all interrogation ceases immediately...

your point is exactly what i was talking about in my post above....it is a mockery to give civilian criminal courts jurisdiciton, but then not allow all the protections granted by such jurisdiction....it is nothing more than a circus and you obama lemmings are gobbling it up
Click to expand...


You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Miranda warnings are simply to advise someone that anything they say can be used against them in court. If you have no intention of using what a person has to say in court, there is no need whatsoever to give a Miranda warnings to him or allow that person to have counsel present at any interrogation.

You can give protections without undermining intelligence operations quite easily.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Miranda warnings are simply to advise someone that anything they say can be used against them in court. If you have no intention of using what a person has to say in court, there is no need whatsoever to give a Miranda warnings to him or allow that person to have counsel present at any interrogation.

You can give protections without undermining intelligence operations quite easily.
Click to expand...

you obviously missed the point of the OP....what if they try osama in court....and you're just proving what a fucking joke this court trial is....oh, we will interrogate outside of court, not for the purposes of court, but for our military stuffs...then we will parade him around in a civilian criminal court.....

and its amusing that you claim i don't know what i am talking about....according to scotus, once you are arrested and the government interrogates you, you are entitled to counsel, thus, your little scenario above about interrogating him not for purposes of the trial would be unconstitutional and a violation of his rights....

what you're advocating is total bullshit....we will try them in criminal court, but we can forgoe their constitutional rights, such as miranda and the right to counsel, for our intelligence gathering.....sorry bud, that is unconstitutional and you know it
 
Yurt said:
you obviously missed the point of the OP....what if they try osama in court....and you're just proving what a fucking joke this court trial is....oh, we will interrogate outside of court, not for the purposes of court, but for our military stuffs...then we will parade him around in a civilian criminal court.....

and its amusing that you claim i don't know what i am talking about....according to scotus, once you are arrested and the government interrogates you, you are entitled to counsel, thus, your little scenario above about interrogating him not for purposes of the trial would be unconstitutional and a violation of his rights....

what you're advocating is total bullshit....we will try them in criminal court, but we can forgoe their constitutional rights, such as miranda and the right to counsel, for our intelligence gathering.....sorry bud, that is unconstitutional and you know it
Click to expand...


If you arrest him, the fruits of any interrogation cannot be used as evidence in court against him but you can interrogate him all that you want. It's an evidentiary rule. It is not a rule against interrogations.

As said, presumably we've got enough evidence to secure a conviction against OBL without needing to rely on the fruits of any interrogation of him.
 
NigelTufnel said:
If you arrest him, the fruits of any interrogation cannot be used as evidence in court against him but you can interrogate him all that you want. It's an evidentiary rule. It is not a rule against interrogations.

As said, presumably we've got enough evidence to secure a conviction against OBL without needing to rely on the fruits of any interrogation of him.
Click to expand...

lmao.....

you're making a mockery of our criminal system then.....you want them to be tried in civil criminal courts, but we don't have to adhere to civil criminal rules....or constitutional rights.....you want to interrogate him and then somehow there will be enough information that was not taken from the unconstitutional interrogation and unconstitutional denial of counsel.....to convict him....

what a joke
 
Yurt said:
lmao.....

you're making a mockery of our criminal system then.....you want them to be tried in civil criminal courts, but we don't have to adhere to civil criminal rules....or constitutional rights.....you want to interrogate him and then somehow there will be enough information that was not taken from the unconstitutional interrogation and unconstitutional denial of counsel.....to convict him....

what a joke
Click to expand...


Yes we have to adhere to the Constitution and civil criminal rules. Those rules do not prohibit interrogation. They prohibit the introduction of evidence gained through interrogation without first advising the defendant of his right to counsel. There is no prohibition on interrogations whatsoever. For a lawyer, you don't seem to know much about the law.

Second, if we don't have enough evidence to convict OBL today then we are seriously fucked. Christ, we're waging two wars for the purpose of combating terrorism and his network you don't think we've got enough evidence to manage to gain a conviction and would need the fruits of an interrogation (a confession) to manage to convict him? Good God.
 
In 2006 we passed a military tribunal law, why aren't we using it?

Obama nearly orgasmed as he described how KSM would get a trial using this method. Now? He tries to pass of the decision to move the trials onto Holder who doesn't have the authority to make such a decision.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Lindsay Graham is being a jackass here. First of all, Osama would be immediately turned over to military intelligence and/or the CIA. And he would not have to be Mirandized for intelligence gathering purposes as the purpose of interrogating him would presumably not be about whether Osama committed any terrorist acts against the United States or its people.

I think it is safe to assume that we've got enough evidence against him as it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama bin Laden is guilty of committing terrorist acts against the U.S. and its people such that we do not need the fruits of an interrogation to try him in court.
Click to expand...

Actually, what do we have but hearsay?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes we have to adhere to the Constitution and civil criminal rules. Those rules do not prohibit interrogation. They prohibit the introduction of evidence gained through interrogation without first advising the defendant of his right to counsel. There is no prohibition on interrogations whatsoever. For a lawyer, you don't seem to know much about the law.

Second, if we don't have enough evidence to convict OBL today then we are seriously fucked. Christ, we're waging two wars for the purpose of combating terrorism and his network you don't think we've got enough evidence to manage to gain a conviction and would need the fruits of an interrogation (a confession) to manage to convict him? Good God.
Click to expand...

lol....there is no prohibition against interrogations....have you ever read edwards v. arizona? you just made yourself look like an idiot....as i said above, you read them their rights, advise them of the right to counsel, if they request counsel you are in fact prohibited from further interrogation....

further my whole point against interrogation is that you can't use it because it is prohibited, not that it can't be done, of course it can be done, illegal activity happens all the time....you of course are again advocating unconstitutional procedures....it violates your constitutional rights to interrogate you without advising you of your rights and without giving you counsel if you so request....why do you hate the constitution? you are advocating suspending the constitution so long as it suits your needs....i bet you railed against bush for what you percieved were constitutional violations, yet here you are advocationg violating the constitution

you want to grant them a civilian criminal trial, but you want to IGNORE the civilian criminal laws....why not just have military tribunal then?
 
Yurt said:
lol....there is no prohibition against interrogations....have you ever read edwards v. arizona? you just made yourself look like an idiot....as i said above, you read them their rights, advise them of the right to counsel, if they request counsel you are in fact prohibited from further interrogation....

further my whole point against interrogation is that you can't use it because it is prohibited, not that it can't be done, of course it can be done, illegal activity happens all the time....you of course are again advocating unconstitutional procedures....it violates your constitutional rights to interrogate you without advising you of your rights and without giving you counsel if you so request....why do you hate the constitution? you are advocating suspending the constitution so long as it suits your needs....i bet you railed against bush for what you percieved were constitutional violations, yet here you are advocationg violating the constitution

you want to grant them a civilian criminal trial, but you want to IGNORE the civilian criminal laws....why not just have military tribunal then?
Click to expand...

since you most likely will not believe me....believe the scotus:

Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680)
...
Question presented
Is the Edwards v. Arizona prohibition against interrogation of a suspect who has invoked the Fifth Amendment right to counsel inapplicable if, after the suspect asks for counsel, there is a break in custody or a substantial lapse in time (more than two years and six months) before commencing reinterrogation pursuant to Miranda?

....

Analysis
The Fifth Amendment prohibits a state from compelling a criminal defendant “to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. To ensure police compliance with this prohibition, the Supreme Court established a bright-line rule under which the police must inform a suspect of certain rights that he or she may exercise, including the right to counsel. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 439, 567–473, 479 (1966). Accordingly, a suspect’s statements are inadmissible if the police fail to inform that suspect of his or her Miranda rights. See id. In Edwards v. Arizona, the Supreme Court created a second layer of protection to prevent law enforcement from badgering a suspect into waiving his or her right to counsel.
Click to expand...

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-680

have anything else to say about what i do for a living? btw, what do you do for a living?
 
Yurt said:
since you most likely will not believe me....believe the scotus:



http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-680

have anything else to say about what i do for a living? btw, what do you do for a living?
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Let's take a look at that again:

The Fifth Amendment prohibits a state from compelling a criminal defendant “to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. To ensure police compliance with this prohibition, the Supreme Court established a bright-line rule under which the police must inform a suspect of certain rights that he or she may exercise, including the right to counsel. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 439, 567–473, 479 (1966). Accordingly, a suspect’s statements are inadmissible if the police fail to inform that suspect of his or her Miranda rights. See id. In Edwards v. Arizona, the Supreme Court created a second layer of protection to prevent law enforcement from badgering a suspect into waiving his or her right to counsel.
Click to expand...


The bold is the important matter. As I said, it is an evidentiary rule, not a prohibition on interrogations. It is unconstitutional to introduce as evidence in court information gained from an un-Mirandized interrogation. It is not unconstitutional to conduct un-Mirandized interrogations.


Edit: And me, I'm in a rock band. Spinal Tap. Ever heard of us? I'm the lead guitarist.
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
For starters, we have a voluntary videotaped admission. Those are usually pretty solid evidence of guilt.
Click to expand...
Was he warned that anything he said would be used against him in court? If he wasn't, those are inadmissible. Were they coerced in any way? If so, those are inadmissible...

Did they, at any point, seek to exercise their right to silence? Did they ever ask for an attorney? (Like KSM did when he was captured...) Were they ever refused those attorneys if they did ask?

This is dumb, there are rules and a law passed for military tribunals for this. We need to use the legal means necessary to deal with these particular situations.
 
Damocles said:
Was he warned that anything he said would be used against him in court? If he wasn't, those are inadmissible. Were they coerced in any way? If so, those are inadmissible...

Did they, at any point, seek to exercise their right to silence? Did they ever ask for an attorney? (Like KSM did when he was captured...)
Click to expand...


Donnie, you are out of your element.
 
Originally Posted by NigelTufnel

For starters, we have a voluntary videotaped admission. Those are usually pretty solid evidence of guilt.
Click to expand...


Damocles said:
Was he warned that anything he said would be used against him in court?

If he wasn't, those are inadmissible.

Were they coerced in any way? If so, those are inadmissible...
Click to expand...

Good christ, did you type this without even thinking?

People are convicted all the time on the bases of tapes, video, and email.
 
Cypress said:
Good christ, did you type this without even thinking?

People are convicted all the time on the bases of tapes, video, and email.
Click to expand...
Not if they weren't Mirandized. Do you even pay any attention at all?

There's this video that ib1yysguy posted, you should watch it, it may protect you from your own stupidity.
 
Damocles said:
Not if they weren't Mirandized. Do you even pay any attention at all?

There's this video that ib1yysguy posted, you should watch it, it may protect you from your own stupidity.
Click to expand...


My post about the video-taped admission was about OBL who is not in custody. Anything he says on any videotapes is admissible. You're wrong.

On KSM you may have a point, but again, we should have all sorts of evidence of his guilt such that we don't need a confession from him to secure a conviction. If we don't have an abundance of evidence of his guilt to support a conviction, why in the hell did we waterboard him 183 times in a single month?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top