Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72

Thread: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

  1. #41
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    They must have heard the howls of criticism from conservatives when they offered the failed Times Square bomber his miranda rights. Now they can't do right for doing wrong....
    If that were actually true I would still want someone so weak-willed about our civil liberties kicked out.

  2. #42
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No, not everyone. There are any number of people that do not enjoy the same protection of their rights under the Constitution as, say, you and I do.
    If you read the constitution you'll notice it's got a list of things the government can't do. No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    No person.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #43
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.

    Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.
    Bull****! You can't make a blanket statement like that.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The constitution applies to everyone, period. Also, they're discussing pushing back these rights for anyone accused of terrorism. Whether they are a US citizen or a foreign terrorist who entered the country covertly.
    Technically, Natural Rights apply to everyone. The Constitution is, admittedly, built off of Natural Rights and if we are to honor the spirit of the Constitution; we should acknowledge everyone's Natural Rights. However, the US Constitution itself only applies to the relation between the US citizens and their dully (yes, dully) elected government.

    Look at it this way, if the Constitution applied to everyone; we'd be filing legal suits against every country of the world. Since we're not, I can assure you that the Constitution does not apply to "everyone."

    I can understand the argument that the Constitution is, at heart, a restricting influence on Our Lord and Savior: the Imperial Federal Government. Thus, "terrorists" are not protected by the Constitution--they merely share in the benefit of the restrictions placed the US Federal government as the judicial equivalent of an economic free-rider. However, you don't seem to be the type who believe the Constitution is, at heart, a restrictive influence on the Federal government. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure you're more of a loose interpretation man.

    It seems that you are trying to say that the Constitution, loosely interpreted (which would logically follow other loose interpretations), should compensate for failing to restrict the Federal government in (among other things; considering most Arabs guilty until proven innocent) all the countless deep infringements on liberty by expanding the purview of a shallower type liberty (such as the Miranda Rights). I find this personally distasteful, and an inaccurate view of the Natural Rights the Constitution was founded on.
    Last edited by Areopagitican; 05-14-10 at 12:08 PM.

  5. #45
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    Technically, Natural Rights apply to everyone. The Constitution is, admittedly, built off of Natural Rights and if we are to honor the spirit of the Constitution; we should acknowledge everyone's Natural Rights. However, the US Constitution itself only applies to the relation between the US citizens and their dully (yes, dully) elected government.

    Look at it this way, if the Constitution applied to everyone; we'd be filing legal suits against every country of the world. Since we're not, I can assure you that the Constitution does not apply to "everyone."
    This is incorrect. The Constitution applies to our government. It restricts our government's behavior, regardless of who that behavior is directed at. An Irishman robbing a convenience store in Arkansas still gets legal counsel and a trial. SCOTUS upholds this.



    I can understand the argument that the Constitution is, at heart, a restricting influence on Our Lord and Savior: the Imperial Federal Government. Thus, "terrorists" are not protected by the Constitution--they merely share in the benefit of the restrictions placed the US Federal government as the judicial equivalent of an economic free-rider. However, you don't seem to be the type who believe the Constitution is, at heart, a restrictive influence on the Federal government. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure you're more of a loose interpretation man.
    This is also incorrect and your partisan hyperbole only serves to detract from your argument.


    It seems that you are trying to say that the Constitution, loosely interpreted (which would logically follow other loose interpretations), should compensate for failing to restrict the Federal government in (among other things; considering most Arabs guilty until proven innocent) all the countless deep infringements on liberty by expanding the purview of a shallower type liberty (such as the Miranda Rights). I find this personally distasteful, and an inaccurate view of the Natural Rights the Constitution was founded on.
    I never said anything of the sort. At least YOUR straw man is a new one. You're trying to interpret my views through a partisan lens and failing miserably.

    My point is that you can't possibly push back Miranda rights of "terrorists" because until due process of law decides someone is guilty, they aren't terrorists. (legally speaking) You can only push back Miranda rights for someone accused of terrorism. Such a person is still innocent if you stick to one of our fundamental tenants.
    Last edited by Deuce; 05-14-10 at 01:11 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Shouldn't you have already learn about rights from school? Why should the police have any obligation to remind you?
    Because in our school system today, you can't count on anything having been properly covered. And if the officer is going to curb your freedom by taking you into custody (keep in mind, you are taken into custody under suspicion and have yet to be convicted of a crime), then yes, he has an obligation to cover your most basic right to defense.

    Besides, the reading of the Miranda rights protects the prosecution from losing out to a technicality as much as it does the suspect.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    This is incorrect. The Constitution applies to our government. It restricts our government's behavior, regardless of who that behavior is directed at.
    Er, awkward. Did you read my second paragraph or did you just skim over it when you dismissed it as partisan hyperbole? I suggest you read it. I would say 'again,' but the truth is fairly evident that you didn't even bother the first time around.

    An Irishman robbing a convenience store in Arkansas still gets legal counsel and a trial. SCOTUS upholds this.
    Robbing an American convenience store, to be tried in American courts, for an American crime and to be dealt an American punishment? Hmm, I think you need to rethink that metaphor.

    The focus is, obviously, not on the Irishman. If he, for instance, robbed a convenience store in Ireland; would he be protected by the Constitution or his Natural Rights? Obviously, his Natural Rights. However, when you bring in an American government aspect (especially an American court) you bring in the Constitution.

    Our biggest difference lies right there. You argue that the terrorist/Irishman is protected by the Constitution, by the mere virtue of existing the Constitution (i.e. Federal government) grants them assorted rights, and I argue (more idealistically) that the terrorist is protected by the Constitution because of the restrictions placed upon the government. My whole point is that the Irishman is not really protected by the US Constitution's granting of Miranda Rights, he's protected from the government itself. However, the Federal government has stopped, long since, caring about restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution. Thus, rendering terrorists (in effect) open game to having their judicial free-ride revoked. Of course, you can argue that the Constitution is a strict, enforcing document but you can't say it then grants rights to people; that'd be a contradiction of terms. What you seem to be implying is that the Constitution is a loose document that grants rights to people, any people, but then you run into the fact that the Constitution isn't granting rights; those rights are already there and thus the realization that you have conceded the Federal government Natural Rights; rights they can take away as easily as they give them (which, I believe, is where America is at. No matter how much I disagree with that position it is the current and most logically consistent foundation to deal with contemporary terrorists).

    This is also incorrect and your partisan hyperbole only serves to detract from your argument.
    So you're a strict constitutionalist?


    I never said anything of the sort. At least YOUR straw man is a new one. You're trying to interpret my views through a partisan lens and failing miserably.
    A new strawman from a partisan lens? Sir, I believe you are speaking in contradictions.

    My point is that you can't possibly push back Miranda rights of "terrorists" because until due process of law decides someone is guilty, they aren't terrorists. (legally speaking) You can only push back Miranda rights for someone accused of terrorism. Such a person is still innocent if you stick to one of our fundamental tenants.
    Just some idle questions. A: whose "due process" and whose "law?" How do we decided that a terrorist is "guilty," before he blows himself (and/or others) to the 24 Virgins? B: legally speaking from whose point of view, and what are the definitions of "accused?" C: innocent in what way, innocent because he is actually innocent or innocent through the eyepiece of the law? Also, "fundamental tenants," as defined by what? You must realize that fundamental tenant must be, well defined, so as to be fundamental.

    This questions actually do matter in their own significant way. Without knowing if you mean the due process of law for the proverbial "terrorist," implying that his Natural Rights are protected by the Constitution, or the due process that American courts adhere to, implying that the terrorist is a judicial "free-rider," is the heart of the difference.

    The same with legally speaking and "accused." I mean, if we can't decide on what the legal defense of the terrorist is, I'm not sure how we can both understand what legally speaking even means. The same with "accused," as Miranda Rights deal almost exclusively within a gray legal netherworld; it doesn't help matters that terrorism, in of itself, is also squiffy (until it is entirely too late).

    Finally, C, is fairly self-explanatory. I'm not sure if I'm understanding our proverbial "terrorist" correctly; especially when it comes to his innocence. If we are back to "innocent until proven guilty," then I direct you back up to questions in "A" and associating paragraph. If he is actually innocent, that would also be interesting. Then there is the whole concept of "fundamental tenants," which I have no idea how to interpret. I mean, it could just be a euphemism for "my beliefs," which would be disappointing, but I doubt it.
    Last edited by Areopagitican; 05-14-10 at 02:32 PM.

  8. #48
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    If you read the constitution you'll notice it's got a list of things the government can't do. No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
    No person.
    So? This does nothing to negate what I said.

    You said:
    The constitution applies to everyone, period
    This is incorrect, as there are any number of people that do not enjoy the same rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution.

    Examples:
    -Minors cannot vote.
    -Non-citizens cannot vote.
    -Public school students do not have the full protection of the 1st amendment
    -POWs may be held indefinitely w/o charges being brought, must less a trial

    This list goes on and on...
    Last edited by Goobieman; 05-14-10 at 03:27 PM.

  9. #49
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    I wonder if Holder has read Miranda.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #50
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I wonder if Holder has read Miranda.
    He'll get his staff on it next week.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •