Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 120 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,835 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
From what I understand the FBI had 48 hours to interview the Boston bomber before having to read him his rights. They were 16 hours into it and were stopped by a Judge. The FBI protested but the bomber was read his rights anyway and then he stopped talking.

WHY was this done? The FBI said the kid was divulging a lot of useful information.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but what the heck is going on in this country? Do terrorists have to be treated with kid gloves by Eric Holder every single time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
I think and I hope I'm right... in 16 hours they prob got what they need. Its hopefully for us as a bully nation to take the high road might be a good thing, maybe?

The above is wishful thinking because I would really rather see him rot in Cuba with his buddies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MasterGadgets

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
Bureaucracy at it's finest. What is wrong with this picture... bombers are treated criminally like civilians instead of terrorists. ...Yet weren't read their miranda rights so that they could be treated like terrorists, temporarily. So the DOJ shuts down the FBI and reads them their miranda rights to shut them up and get them on the path of a civilian trial. Now there is the impossible task of finding an impartial jury. Also, this kids lawyer is going to find every excuse in the book to get him off death row - including the failure to read him his miranda rights.

Fail on all accounts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
He is a US citizen. Your rights do not change depending what crime you are charged with. I kinda thought that is why we have protections in our laws and COnstittuitiion....So emotions do not come into the equation. If we did not have our system of justice we would be just another 3rd world nation throwing folks in jail on accuastaions and for politcal reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,941 Posts
Who/what says they're allowed 48 hours before having to read your rights?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Secret Spuk

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
He is a US citizen. Your rights do not change depending what crime you are charged with. I kinda thought that is why we have protections in our laws and COnstittuitiion....So emotions do not come into the equation. If we did not have our system of justice we would be just another 3rd world nation throwing folks in jail on accuastaions and for politcal reasons.
Exactly so. :yup:

Why was he read his rights? Because it was the just and right thing to do, because it's required by our law to do exactly that.

What ... so, DUI's get read rights, but not armed robbers? Murderers of more than one person don't get read their rights, but murderers of only one do? Where would it end? Answer: it wouldn't. And that's the point, and why we have the requirement, and why we don't authorize our hirelings to commit such acts.

Political expediency is the worst of all reasons, IMO, to sidestep justice. It's what has gotten us into this eviscerate-the-2A situation, if you think about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
I think that once they figured out it was not part of a bigger outside terrorist threat that they decided to be safe and treat him like any other person with a visa or U.S. citizen and read him his rights. Makes it easier in court I would think. He was being cooperative but I'm sure that it was because they told him that as a terrorist he was facing the death penalty and more or less no rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,390 Posts
...I'm ignorant of the laws governing handling of terrorists...

...could someone explain where the law says that terrorists have" more or less no rights?"
...would the determination that the person was a terrorist be made by the LEOs, a prosecutor; would he have a trial that decided that he was a terrorist and would he have citizens' rights until that conviction?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
...I'm ignorant of the laws governing handling of terrorists...

...could someone explain where the law says that terrorists have" more or less no rights?"
...would the determination that the person was a terrorist be made by the LEOs, a prosecutor; would he have a trial that decided that he was a terrorist and would he have citizens' rights until that conviction?
And, further, what in the Constitution specifically justifies designating that someone is devoid of such rights to counsel, rights to keep quiet, rights to a swift juried trial, etc?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
Well, Obama did sign the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) into law. Which lets the Feds detain potential terrorists as long as they want without due process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Well, Obama did sign the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) into law. Which lets the Feds detain potential terrorists as long as they want without due process.
And what justifies that, constitutionally/lawfully?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
I am definitely not one to give much consideration to conspiracy theories (I will listen, but as always, judge for myself); however, the information Glenn Beck has been revealing about the incident is starting to look like a significant cover up. Mr. Beck apparently has a few legislators who have seen the information directly and are pushing for an investigation.

Based on this and other DOJ actions in recent years that seem equally questionable, I believe illegal things are taking place. If true, I hope they are exposed as soon as possible.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
...I'm ignorant of the laws governing handling of terrorists...

...could someone explain where the law says that terrorists have" more or less no rights?"
...would the determination that the person was a terrorist be made by the LEOs, a prosecutor; would he have a trial that decided that he was a terrorist and would he have citizens' rights until that conviction?
INAL LOL.......

OK, An enemy combatant is normally thought of as a legitamte person fighting for a government or state:
Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2] Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).[3]
Since 9/11 Bush perverted that term which confuses people. Taliban, Al Queda, are considered "enemy combatants" but they are also no treated as POW's. They are considered illegal combatants.

Terrorism is considered a crime according to : 18 USC CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C113B.txt

So, a terrorist is a crimminal and should be afforded all the rights of a crimminal IMO and understanding.

On a side note- The Taliban should be considered POW's and after we leave Afghanistan then all Taliban should be released. We invaded Afghanistan, displaced the governing body which was the Taliban, and they fought back like we would under those circumstances (an invasion).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad Bob

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
And what justifies that, constitutionally/lawfully?
Nothing. Aogiss' avatar sums up how I feel about it. I can't help but wonder if they were acting under the NDAA's statutes, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,390 Posts
...can you cite the part of the NDAA that states that? I don't have time to plow through it to see what it says(kinda like those who voted on it)...
Well, Obama did sign the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) into law. Which lets the Feds detain potential terrorists as long as they want without due process.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Sections 1021 and 1022
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,316 Posts
It took them long enough. I read somewhere that with the video and physical evidence they probably have plenty enough to convict without using anything from the interrogation. What they needed immediately was intel of any ongoing jeopardy. That might make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret and Snub44
1 - 20 of 120 Posts
Top