cliffwhite 0 #1 November 29, 2009 All of you Patriots are familiar with them. Miranda Rights. If one is arrested, before interrogation the Miranda Rights must be read. Does anyone know if the Miranda Rights were read to Sheik Kalil Muhammed before his waterboard interrogation? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #2 November 29, 2009 QuoteDoes anyone know if the Miranda Rights were read to Sheik Kalil Muhammed before his waterboard interrogation? It doesn't matter, but they probably did. If he didn't understand them because they weren't in arabic that's his problem. The way i see it, he didn't need to be mirandized because he's a war criminal, and much, much worse I'm sure.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #3 November 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteDoes anyone know if the Miranda Rights were read to Sheik Kalil Muhammed before his waterboard interrogation? It doesn't matter, but they probably did. If he didn't understand them because they weren't in arabic that's his problem. The way i see it, he didn't need to be mirandized because he's a war criminal, and much, much worse I'm sure. LOL!! Really? "He's a war criminal"? Says who? "much much worse"? Uhm , rwfeder, have you ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty? Do you know why the reading of the Miranda Rights are a requirement before any government interrogation? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #4 November 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteDoes anyone know if the Miranda Rights were read to Sheik Kalil Muhammed before his waterboard interrogation? It doesn't matter, but they probably did. If he didn't understand them because they weren't in arabic that's his problem. The way i see it, he didn't need to be mirandized because he's a war criminal, and much, much worse I'm sure. Aside from your opinion, it depends upon which rules we are going to use in regard to whether he needed to be Mirandized. And if he wasn't, those statements can't be used unless he testifies, then they can be used in rebuttal, only what he opens up. However if the statements were coerced, they can NEVER be used. I imagine he'll be tried using Federal Rules of Crim Proc, so these rules should be the same as state rules, since the SCOTUS governs them all. The Exclusionary Rule is used to deter police misconduct, so if the cops play fair, they can bring it all in, lie or worst, coerce (waterboard) and the evidence may never see the light of day. The argument could be made that he was arrested as a war combatant, therefore Miranda didn't apply. But since we've used torture I think Obama/DOJ wants to raise the bar. Just shows that playing fair is the way to earn respect from other countries. We can't act as the enforcer when we use illicit means to obtain evidence; then we are the criminals. EDITED TO ADD: Yes it does matter that the def understands them. Absent that, thee is no transmission of the Miranda (brightline) Rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #5 November 30, 2009 QuoteUhm , rwfeder, have you ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty? Do you know why the reading of the Miranda Rights are a requirement before any government interrogation? Cliff: One thing I do know for sure is you can't spell my name right. When you can, I'll answer your question.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #6 November 30, 2009 Where was he arrested and by whom? Damn devil in those tricky little legal details... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #7 November 30, 2009 I find it annoying when bleeding heart liberals complain about people not being read their miranda rights. I think most people have forgotten or never knew that these 'rights' were named after Ernesto Arturo Miranda, a confessed and convicted rapist, dishonorably discharged from the Army For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #8 November 30, 2009 The Miranda rights are there to protect against someone's constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination. It doesn't matter who it was named after, those are important. The right is important enough to be worth a warning for each arrest, and not just assuming that people remember them. Personally, I think they're brilliant. Because they restore a little process and sanity into what's normally an emotionally-charged situation (on the part of both the police and the alleged perpetrator). And process is that which returns people to considering actions on their own merits, rather than only in the current situation. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #9 November 30, 2009 Fully agreed, although I don't believe they apply to a non-US citizen detained on foreign soil by military forces. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #10 November 30, 2009 Oh, I agree with that. Of course, I think that by and large, we should try to take the emotion out of that, too. Remember -- just because we have a process doesn't mean that exigent circumstances won't have it ignored. But ignoring best practice should be done in a considered manner, with a penalty likely. Just as many of the BSRs are written in blood, so are some of the law enforcement practices. And just because it's the potential perpetrator's blood doesn't make it OK. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 November 30, 2009 QuoteFully agreed, although I don't believe they apply to a non-US citizen detained on foreign soil by military forces. The only criteria for US constitutional rights to apply is that the defendant is charged with violating US criminal law, and is tried by US authorities in a US civilian court. By the way, people often seem to think that if Miranda rights are not read, that means the criminal case "gets thrown out on a technicality." But that is simply not the case. It simply means that if the defendant makes a self-incriminating statement, that statement may not be admitted into evidence at trial. But the trial may still otherwise proceed with non-tainted evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #12 November 30, 2009 Miranda warning is not a Constitutional right. Miranda warning is not required in arrest anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #13 November 30, 2009 Quote Miranda warning is not a Constitutional right. I didn't say it was. See above. Quote Miranda warning is not required in arrest anyway. I didn't say it was. See above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #14 November 30, 2009 Quote . . . gets thrown out on a technicality." But that is simply not the case. That is true. Miranda was eventually retried with his confession suppressed and was sentenced to 20 years. Don't get me wrong - I am not a nut who thinks coerced confessions are good for the country. I do, however, agree with Justice Byron White's dissenting opinion of the Miranda case: "In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity." For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 December 1, 2009 QuoteI find it annoying when bleeding heart liberals complain about people not being read their miranda rights. I think most people have forgotten or never knew that these 'rights' were named after Ernesto Arturo Miranda, a confessed and convicted rapist, dishonorably discharged from the Army Tell me what case reaffirmed Miranda much later. He was also a scumbag; most case law is based on guilty people, the idea is to protect the rights of others. And like Miranda, the other guy I'm referring to was also convicted. Just because certain statements aren't admissible doesn't mean the whole case is trashed. We need to protect ourselves from: - Raping scumbags - Oppressive government It isn't a celebration of Ernesto Miranda everytime a person gets Mirandized, even tho hsi name will live on forever. Of course he was murdered and the suspects refused to speak under their Miranda rights..... no one was ever tried for his murder.... irony score: infinitty trillion. BTW, what happens when it's a maggotted conservative who claims his Miranda rights? Not annoying I suppose? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #16 December 1, 2009 QuoteFully agreed, although I don't believe they apply to a non-US citizen detained on foreign soil by military forces. That's the million-dollar question. Of course their Geneva rights were violated too as per torture, no contact, etc., so I think we're upping their rights due to Bush's corrupt policies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #17 December 1, 2009 As many times as I re-read your comments it still leads me to believe you did imply both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 December 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteFully agreed, although I don't believe they apply to a non-US citizen detained on foreign soil by military forces. The only criteria for US constitutional rights to apply is that the defendant is charged with violating US criminal law, and is tried by US authorities in a US civilian court. By the way, people often seem to think that if Miranda rights are not read, that means the criminal case "gets thrown out on a technicality." But that is simply not the case. It simply means that if the defendant makes a self-incriminating statement, that statement may not be admitted into evidence at trial. But the trial may still otherwise proceed with non-tainted evidence. In AZ, I imagine it's SCOTUS so national, if the Def testifies they can bring in the suppressed statements on rebuttal. If the statements are coerced they can never be brought in. This was taught in school years ago as well I witnessed that rule in effect with the serial killer trials I watched. He testified and they brought in GPS tacking that was unwarranted and cell phone records that were obtained w/o a warrant. Otherwise they would have been excluded. And the judge obliged by NOT allowing surrebuttal witnesses. Of course cross was allowed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #19 December 1, 2009 Quote Miranda warning is not a Constitutional right. Miranda warning is not required in arrest anyway. It has to so with the voluntariness of statements and subsequent admission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #20 December 1, 2009 QuoteQuote . . . gets thrown out on a technicality." But that is simply not the case. That is true. Miranda was eventually retried with his confession suppressed and was sentenced to 20 years. Don't get me wrong - I am not a nut who thinks coerced confessions are good for the country. I do, however, agree with Justice Byron White's dissenting opinion of the Miranda case: "In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity." Don't confuse lack of Miranda with coercion; different degrees. - Failure to Mirandize after detention, before questioning just excludes the statements unless D testifies. - Coercion as in threats, promises, sleep deprivation, toture (you know, Bush stuff) qualifies for permanent omission/exclusion of statements regardless of whether D testifies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #21 December 1, 2009 Incorrect sir. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #22 December 1, 2009 Quote Incorrect sir. Well that explains it. I see you're proud enough of it to explain why. We learned Miranda in university years ago, I just took a paralegal class last semester taught by a local lower court criminal prosecutor, who also has a private practice on hos own where he does criminal defense. We just went over this. Not to mention the several month trial I attended where I witnessed this. So tell me, what case reaffirmed Miranda? Andy - stay out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #23 December 1, 2009 Given that you typically dislike doing research for others, I was simply returning the consideration. It matters not which case reaffirmed Miranda as that's not the topic at hand. Simply being arrested does not require a suspect to be read their Miranda rights. Watch more trials. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #24 December 1, 2009 Quote So tell me, what case reaffirmed Miranda? Andy - stay out vs. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #25 December 1, 2009 QuoteAs many times as I re-read your comments it still leads me to believe you did imply both. Well, I didn't, and I'm not going to spend 10-15 minutes typing out a longer response to prove it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
