Enemy Combatant

Even if this guy confesses and that confession is thrown out, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence linking him to this crime (video, eywitnesses, possibly not the heresay statement of the carjackey, finger prints or DNA on the discarded bombs). If they are questioning him on other possible terrorist activities that he may know of, what is the problem with not issuing him Miranda as long as those answers do not incriminate him?

chickaree wrote: Am I right in thinking that anything he has said up to this point will be I admissible? What a mess! Sadly not surprising. If we can kill young citizens overseas with drones without due process, why not just do it here as well?

IF I understand Dershowitz, it can NOT be held admissible in court....Miranda is REQUIRED for that.....(even with a "safety
issue" designation.....it does NOT matter according to Alan D.

homeagain wrote:

chickaree wrote: Am I right in thinking that anything he has said up to this point will be I admissible? What a mess! Sadly not surprising. If we can kill young citizens overseas with drones without due process, why not just do it here as well?

IF I understand Dershowitz, it can NOT be held admissible in court....Miranda is REQUIRED for that.....(even with a "safety
issue" designation.....it does NOT matter according to Alan D.

We could question this guy for a year without a Miranda warning and there would still be plenty of admittable evidence to convict this scumbag. Rushing a Miranda warning will give future terrorists zero incentive to ever talk.

Rick I am NOT disputing that fact......this is a LEGAL procedure that is required to be followed BECAUSE he is a citizen of
the United States of America, he should be availed of his rights......NOT JMO.

I am a bit confused.

So they are going to question him, without a defense lawyer present. They cannot use anything he says against him in a court of law. They can't force him to say anything.

Which of his Constitutional rights does this violate?

Photo-fish wrote: Even if this guy confesses and that confession is thrown out, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence linking him to this crime (video, eywitnesses, possibly not the heresay statement of the carjackey, finger prints or DNA on the discarded bombs). If they are questioning him on other possible terrorist activities that he may know of, what is the problem with not issuing him Miranda as long as those answers do not incriminate him?

Exactly

I believe the line of questioning pre-Miranda was designed to ascertain whether or not there were additional accomplices/organizations involved.

He has now been read his rights, and I think the line of questioning is more focused on his individual actions.

I have no issues with this individual being tried ---- there's a wealth of legal evidence to support the prosecution and conviction of him

---

and I'm fine with justice being done.

That said, I'm not the least bit comfortable with LEO of any level questioning an American citizen without their rights being established. If the government can set aside his rights - they can set aside yours and mine, too.

I think we're moving closer to allowing - and even encouraging a "shoot first - ask questions later" form of "justice."

It wasn't even necessary in this particular case - government is simply using this case to establish legal precedent.

My thoughts on the matter are this. Your rights are protected by the Constitution, not anything which is read or not read to you at the time of your arrest. The bomber was still able to avail himself of his 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination even if no one told him that he could do so. If you have an intelligence which is higher than that which establishes that you need to be watered twice a week, you know that you don't have to answer any questions asked of you when you have been seized by law enforcement officers of any stripe. So the police keep him awake for 48 hours straight asking him questions which he can state he will not answer for 48 hours. Big deal.

Bob is right on.....look at the recent (60s and 70s) history of citizens murdering cops and others bombing buildings and tried as citizens. GOOGLE: SLA, Weather Underground......as a start. The older brother by gaining training in Russia and not being a citizen is definitely an enemy combatant.....the kid is a citizen.

Last night bomber #2 was moved to a military prison medical facility. Maybe he isn't an enemy combatant but they are treating him like one?

They are treating him like a federal prisoner...as that is how he will be charged.