Will Osama Bin laden be Read his Miranda Rights

[DamnYankee]

You lawyers and your penal interest.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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




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.

are you serious.....why the hell do you think your bold makes it so there is not a prohibition? the prohibition is against testifying against yourself, thus scotus made a bright line rule to enforce that prohibition.....

did you actually read what i put out for you or are you in such shock at being so wrong....its too funny how you ignore the parts that prove you're wrong and settle on the tiny part about evidentiary rules.....you can't ignore the prohibition and accept the evidentiary rules, the evidentiary rules are there BECAUSE of the prohibition....

you're just embarrassing yourself

 

[Bonestorm]

running away from your interrogation argument?

Uh, no. My response it right up there. By the way, you should maybe check out Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 767 (2003):

Statements compelled by police interrogations of course may not be used against a defendant at trial, see Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 286 (1936), but it is not until their use in a criminal case that a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause occurs, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 264 (1990) (“The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. Although conduct by law enforcement officials prior to trial may ultimately impair that right, a constitutional violation occurs only at trial” (emphases added; citations omitted)); Withrow v. Williams, 507 U. S. 680, 692 (1993) (describing the Fifth Amendment as a “ ‘trial right’ ”); id., at 705 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing “true Fifth Amendment claims” as “the extraction and use of compelled testimony” (emphasis altered)).

http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/538/760.pdf

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

see post 42....i didn't see your response, 42 responds

you're absolutely wrong and clearly out of your element....

of course a violation of your 5th am. self incrim rights doesn't occur until trial, that doesn't mean there is not a prohibition against interrogation once you request counsel or choose to remain silent....

it is an evidentiary violation because interrogations after you request counsel or choose to remain silent are in fact prohibited

 

[Bonestorm]

see post 42....i didn't see your response, 42 responds

you're absolutely wrong and clearly out of your element....

of course a violation of your 5th am. rights doesn't occur until trial, that doesn't mean there is not a prohibition against interrogation once you request counsel or choose to remain silent....

it is an evidentiary violation because interrogations after you request counsel or choose to remain silent are in fact prohibited

No, interrogations are not prohibited. The prosecution is prohibited from using the fruits of any interrogation in court. Thus, we could interrogate OBL all we wanted so long as we did not introduced anything he said at trial. And, as I said previously, we ought to have plenty of evidence on which to base a conviction such that a confession should not be necessary.

 

[Bonestorm]

More from Martinez:

Here, Martinez was never made to be a “witness” against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause because his statements were never admitted as testimony against him in a criminal case. Nor was he ever placed under oath and exposed to “ ‘the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.’ ” Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 445 (1974) (quoting Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of N. Y. Harbor, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964)). The text of the Self-Incrimination Clause simply cannot support the Ninth Circuit’s view that the mere use of compulsive questioning, without more, violates the Constitution.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, interrogations are not prohibited. The prosecution is prohibited from using the fruits of any interrogation in court. Thus, we could interrogate OBL all we wanted so long as we did not introduced anything he said at trial. And, as I said previously, we ought to have plenty of evidence on which to base a conviction such that a confession should not be necessary.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Court determined that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against compelled self-incrimination required that custodial interrogation be [451 U.S. 477, 482] preceded by advice to the putative defendant that he has the right to remain silent and also the right to the presence of an attorney. 384 U.S., at 479 . The Court also indicated the procedures to be followed subsequent to the warnings. If the accused indicates that he wishes to remain silent, "the interrogation must cease." If he requests counsel, "the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present." Id., at 474.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=451&invol=477

now what, are you going to argue the scotus is wrong and that some wanna be smelly glove, to afraid to say what he does for a living but will mock others, rock star is right.....

it must cease....that is a prohibition, you're clearly way out of your league

further, those who write for the online Cornell LAW bulletin disagree with you.....you cherry picked this the last time, so i will give to you in full again....what makes you think you're more knowledgeable than those who wrote this bulletin????

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.

come on, explain to us all how they got it wrong and you're right....

 

[Bonestorm]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=451&invol=477

now what, are you going to argue the scotus is wrong and that some wanna be smelly glove, to afraid to say what he does for a living but will mock others, rock star is right.....

it must cease....that is a prohibition, you're clearly way out of your league

further, those who write for the online Cornell LAW bulletin disagree with you.....you cherry picked this the last time, so i will give to you in full again....what makes you think you're more knowledgeable than those who wrote this bulletin????




come on, explain to us all how they got it wrong and you're right....

Please read the Martinez case that I linked to which post-dates all of the case law that you are citing to and directly addresses the question of whether coercive interrogations themselves violated the Constitution. I would post long excerpts of that case but I don't think you'd get it.

Nevertheless, a little more from Martinez:

Our holdings in these cases demonstrate that, contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s view, mere coercion does not violate the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal
case against the witness.

You're wrong, Yurtle.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Please read the Martinez case that I linked to which post-dates all of the case law that you are citing to and directly addresses the question of whether coercive interrogations themselves violated the Constitution. I would post long excerpts of that case but I don't think you'd get it.

Nevertheless, a little more from Martinez:




You're wrong, Yurtle.

you're such an idiot smigeltunnelvision.....the cornell article and the case it discussed are from 2009 you simpleton....your case is from 2003....

obviously you don't know what the fackle you're talking about.....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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.

this is your problem....in martinez, he was placed under arrest and in the hosptital while the questions were asked.....he was not arrested, taken to jail and questioned "all they wanted".....

if they arrest OBL and do not read him his miranda rights and then interrogate him and then take him to court, the case is going to be tossed....because if they do read him his rights and he chooses to remain silent or request counsel, then under edwards the police are prohibited from any further questioning....

martinez likened the police "alleged" (the court said alleged) interrogation to mere "questioning" like an investigator would do before deciding to bring charges....because if you actually read the case he was being questioned about whether the police mistreated him and there was concern martinez would die....

We therefore must take into account the fact that Martinez was hospitalized and in severe pain during the interview, but also that Martinez was a critical nonpolice witness to an altercation resulting in a shooting by a police officer, and that the situation was urgent given the perceived risk that Martinez might die and crucial evidence might be lost

what you're advocating is quite the opposite....we know we are going to charge obl, you're claiming his guilty and will be found so even without the unconstitutional interrogation.....

martinez is not at all applicable here, nor did it address his sixth amendment rights....for martinez to apply, OBL would have to be arrested, not given his miranda rights and then released never to be charged or tried

good try....but you are still wrong

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I'm not at all surprised no one else, but Damo, sees what I see in this.

 

[Bonestorm]

this is your problem....in martinez, he was placed under arrest and in the hosptital while the questions were asked.....he was not arrested, taken to jail and questioned "all they wanted".....

if they arrest OBL and do not read him his miranda rights and then interrogate him and then take him to court, the case is going to be tossed....because if they do read him his rights and he chooses to remain silent or request counsel, then under edwards the police are prohibited from any further questioning....

martinez likened the police "alleged" (the court said alleged) interrogation to mere "questioning" like an investigator would do before deciding to bring charges....because if you actually read the case he was being questioned about whether the police mistreated him and there was concern martinez would die....




what you're advocating is quite the opposite....we know we are going to charge obl, you're claiming his guilty and will be found so even without the unconstitutional interrogation.....

martinez is not at all applicable here, nor did it address his sixth amendment rights....for martinez to apply, OBL would have to be arrested, not given his miranda rights and then released never to be charged or tried

good try....but you are still wrong

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree notwithstanding that Martinez makes abundantly clear that your position is ridiculous.

 

[belme1201]

This administration has gone mad. Wake up people, before it's too late.

realclearpolitics.com

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "If you're gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war."

A defendent doesn't get a lawyer in a military court? Try again.
Next question, after all these years why did bush wait for the trials, civil or military, for another administration to come into office to do their dirty work?

 

[belme1201]

Actually, the origins of those tapes can't be reliably determined, and OBL never actually stated that he was responsible.

....and the tapes are made less valid by bush/Cheney torture pollicies.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

A defendent doesn't get a lawyer in a military court? Try again.
Next question, after all these years why did bush wait for the trials, civil or military, for another administration to come into office to do their dirty work?

Oh, puullleeezze, please cite where a defendant doesn't get a lawyer in a military court.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

....and the tapes are made less valid by bush/Cheney torture pollicies.

i believe the tapes in question are those propaganda tapes, not taped confessions while in the custody of the US

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree notwithstanding that Martinez makes abundantly clear that your position is ridiculous.

no it doesn't....you just have no idea how to read a case or apply a case to a given situation....the facts of the case matter, the court was clear that they found the unintentional miranda violation did not amount to a 5th amendment self incim constitutional violation given the circumstances in that case....if you really want to hang your hat that all cases are applied equally regardless of the facts, go for it, and continue to look like an idiot...

that is why, contrary to your earlier assertion that martinez (a 2003 case) came after my cites, later cases and law articles clearly and unequivocally state exactly what i said and it is still valid law today....

do you even realize the case was remanded back to the 9th to determine if he did in fact have rights, other than the 5th against self incrim, violated????

there is no doubt that if OBL is arrested, unless he is on his death bed, being questioned about a police shooting or soldier shooting against himself, that martinez will not apply, as they know he should be given his miranda if we are going to place him under our civilian criminal court's jurisdiction, thus, a miranda violation in his case (unlike the unintentional in martinez) will be intentional and martinez will be easily distiguinshable by even the most inexperience lawyer or internet hack that thinks he knows everything about the law

 

[DamnYankee]

....and the tapes are made less valid by bush/Cheney torture pollicies.

Holy shit, talk about irrelevant. Go back to sucking dick.

 

[Bonestorm]

no it doesn't....you just have no idea how to read a case or apply a case to a given situation....the facts of the case matter, the court was clear that they found the unintentional miranda violation did not amount to a 5th amendment self incim constitutional violation given the circumstances in that case....if you really want to hang your hat that all cases are applied equally regardless of the facts, go for it, and continue to look like an idiot...

that is why, contrary to your earlier assertion that martinez (a 2003 case) came after my cites, later cases and law articles clearly and unequivocally state exactly what i said and it is still valid law today....

do you even realize the case was remanded back to the 9th to determine if he did in fact have rights, other than the 5th against self incrim, violated????

there is no doubt that if OBL is arrested, unless he is on his death bed, being questioned about a police shooting or soldier shooting against himself, that martinez will not apply, as they know he should be given his miranda if we are going to place him under our civilian criminal court's jurisdiction, thus, a miranda violation in his case (unlike the unintentional in martinez) will be intentional and martinez will be easily distiguinshable by even the most inexperience lawyer or internet hack that thinks he knows everything about the law

Listen guy, I was trying to be polite by leaving it as we'll agree to disagree. The fact of the matter is that notwithstanding your purported legal education, you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. The Thomas opinion in Martinez makes clear that your unsupported assertion that interrogation without first providing the Miranda warnings is a Constitutional violation is just plain wrong. The Constitutional violation can only occur at any subsequent trial because the 5th Amendment protects again self-incrimination, not against police interrogation. Use your fucking head.

I'll quote the opinion again in the hopes that you have learned to read then English language since I last posted it:

Statements compelled by police interrogations of course may not be used against a defendant at trial, see Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 286 (1936), but it is not until their use in a criminal case that a violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause occurs, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 264 (1990) (“The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. Although conduct by law enforcement officials prior to trial may ultimately impair that right, a constitutional violation occurs only at trial” (emphases added; citations omitted)); Withrow v. Williams, 507 U. S. 680, 692 (1993) (describing the Fifth Amendment as a “ ‘trial right’ ”); id., at 705 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing “true Fifth Amendment claims” as “the extraction and use of compelled testimony” (emphasis altered)).

Our holdings in these cases demonstrate that, contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s view, mere coercion does not violate the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness.

And I'd note further that the only case I have seen you cite to is the Edwards case, which doesn't deal with the question of whether interrogation without Miranda warnings is unconstitutional. You haven't pointed any SCOTUS decision post-dating Martinez.

You may be a lawyer, but it looks like you got shafted at law school.