Is Bin Laden Now Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[Autodidact]

Miranda v Arizona (1966)- Held that police must notify suspects of their rights prior to custodial interrogation no matter what whenever placed in custody. Including asking question's based on the incident. After the warnings have been given the following should be asked: 1) do you understand the rights? 2) knowing the rights do you wish to talk now?

If you don't follow this then you're seriously screwin.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)- Held that police must notify suspects of their rights prior to custodial interrogation no matter what whenever placed in custody. Including asking question's based on the incident. After the warnings have been given the following should be asked: 1) do you understand the rights? 2) knowing the rights do you wish to talk now?

If you don't follow this then you're seriously screwin.

Yes, we know they have to give them Miranda warnings. What we're talking about is what happens if they don't. What happens is that any confession given without the warnings is excluded. The charges would be thrown out only if they cannot be proven without the confession. See?

wiki again:

The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

I am explaining this to you for your benefit. If you want to understand Criminal Procedure, you need to grasp this basic point.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,

But what about their right to a hearing before a federal judge?

Doesn't apply to battle situation. C'mon people, this isn't hard. Do you think the soldiers who landed at Normandy brought Nazis before a federal Judge? I'm not saying there's no rules, I'm saying it's war rules, not criminal rules. Or rather it should be. However, since the Bush administration is too stupid to declare war on Al Qaeda, and instead chose to declare war on a country that had nothing to do with it, we're operating under criminal rules.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Yes, we know they have to give them Miranda warnings. What we're talking about is what happens if they don't. What happens is that any confession given without the warnings is excluded. The charges would be thrown out only if they cannot be proven without the confession. See?

wiki again:

The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

I am explaining this to you for your benefit. If you want to understand Criminal Procedure, you need to grasp this basic point.

Uh that's what I'm saying. Before you can talk to someone about the crime you have to give them their rights and get their comment that they understand. You also have to tell them they can have a lawyer or if they want to waver the right to their lawyer. You're just echoing the definition I gave from my book.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Doesn't apply to battle situation. C'mon people, this isn't hard. Do you think the soldiers who landed at Normandy brought Nazis before a federal Judge? I'm not saying there's no rules, I'm saying it's war rules, not criminal rules. Or rather it should be. However, since the Bush administration is too stupid to declare war on Al Qaeda, and instead chose to declare war on a country that had nothing to do with it, we're operating under criminal rules.

Yes soldiers were brought to the Nuremberg trials who didn't die on the battle field. That is when the court said that "Just following orders" or "just doing my job" doesn't apply and that you still have to follow the laws of a country whether you're own or the country you are occupying or international laws. Even so you should still bring BinLadin (if he's still a live, remember he supposedly had this awful kidney disease) and anyone who is helping him to justice.

 

[Autodidact]

LittlePinky: You said the case would be thrown out. I said, no, only if you can't prove it without the confession. See the difference?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi littlepinky,

In the past whenever the U.S. was involved in some type of battle like this people would seek out American soldiers and give themselves up to them because they knew the Americans would treat them well and be fair and just. Isn't it time we start showing that again?

You are missing the point. If the foreign soldiers have rights, then to engage them at all would be unalwful. Their rights would be infringed on.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Doesn't apply to battle situation. C'mon people, this isn't hard. Do you think the soldiers who landed at Normandy brought Nazis before a federal Judge? I'm not saying there's no rules, I'm saying it's war rules, not criminal rules. Or rather it should be. However, since the Bush administration is too stupid to declare war on Al Qaeda, and instead chose to declare war on a country that had nothing to do with it, we're operating under criminal rules.

Is this correct though? A declaration of war would deem their rights to not exist? Is that what the Supreme Court said?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Hi littlepinky,



You are missing the point. If the foreign soldiers have rights, then to engage them at all would be unlawful. Their rights would be infringed on.

I think we are missing the point Joe. They want to make warfare unlawful.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Rev,

I think we are missing the point Joe. They want to make warfare unlawful.

That seems the logical extension of this ruling.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi littlepinky,

You are missing the point. If the foreign soldiers have rights, then to engage them at all would be unalwful. Their rights would be infringed on.

So it was illegal for the U.S. to declare war on Japan? Is that your argument?

 

[Autodidact]

I think we are missing the point Joe. They want to make warfare unlawful.

Who wants that? Who are you slandering now?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Rev,

That seems the logical extension of this ruling.

You're mistaken. War is one thing, criminal law another. No one except you has suggested that war is illegal.

Now an unprovoked war against a country that was not threatening any aggression--that's different. That violates international law.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Rev,



That seems the logical extension of this ruling.

Maybe you should recheck your logic. You seem to be saying that if the Constitution protects the rights of criminal defendants, then the U.S. cannot declare war. Pretty silly argument.

You know that the Bush administration had the option of declaring these men prisoners of war and rejected it, right? Had they done so, no one would be arguing for Habeas rights, they'd be advocating for Geneva convention rights. The Bush administration wants it both ways, so that they have no rights. That's called "totalitarianism."

 

[LittlePinky82]

LittlePinky: You said the case would be thrown out. I said, no, only if you can't prove it without the confession. See the difference?

And you can't have a confession without the Miranda rights being read to the person. You have to ask the person if he/she knows what they are doing and if they want a lawyer. If a person wavers their rights then it doesn't matter. According to Miranda v Arizona it says that police must notify the suspect of their rights prior to custodial interrogation. And again my professor has said there have been many times where cases have been thrown out of the court room simply because the defendant's lawyer pointed out the fact that there was no Miranda rights read.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Maybe you should recheck your logic. You seem to be saying that if the Constitution protects the rights of criminal defendants, then the U.S. cannot declare war. Pretty silly argument.

You know that the Bush administration had the option of declaring these men prisoners of war and rejected it, right? Had they done so, no one would be arguing for Habeas rights, they'd be advocating for Geneva convention rights. The Bush administration wants it both ways, so that they have no rights. That's called "totalitarianism."

The Constitution states you have to declare war first before there is a war. We haven't declared war since what WWII? I know every war since Vietnam at least hasn't been declared. While you're correct what about what happened to the Japanese during Vietnam? They had POW's and tortured them (see McCain) but yet they got in trouble for doing so. I would also call this kidnapping too. But that's just me.

 

[Autodidact]

And you can't have a confession without the Miranda rights being read to the person. You have to ask the person if he/she knows what they are doing and if they want a lawyer. If a person wavers their rights then it doesn't matter. According to Miranda v Arizona it says that police must notify the suspect of their rights prior to custodial interrogation. And again my professor has said there have been many times where cases have been thrown out of the court room simply because the defendant's lawyer pointed out the fact that there was no Miranda rights read.

Yes, as I said now three times, if the case can't be proven without the excluded confession, then the case would be thrown out as well. The confession is excluded. If the case can't be proven without the confession, then the case could be thrown out or the defendant found not guilty. What is not the law is that you can't charge someone with a crime if you don't Mirandize them first, which is the impression your first post gave.

 

[Autodidact]

The Constitution states you have to declare war first before there is a war. We haven't declared war since what WWII? I know every war since Vietnam at least hasn't been declared. While you're correct what about what happened to the Japanese during Vietnam? They had POW's and tortured them (see McCain) but yet they got in trouble for doing so. I would also call this kidnapping too. But that's just me.

The Japanese in Vietnam? Is that what you meant to say?

Anyway, I think we're getting pretty far afield. All I'm saying is pick one: criminal prosecution or war. I think 9/11 was an act of war, and we should be in war mode. The administration seems to disagree. They seem to be in a combination of stupid-go-after-the-wrong-guys mode and do-whatever-we-want-with-no-rule-of-law mode.

 

[Ares123]

Laws are useless unless they're applied to EVERYONE. Of COURSE Bin Laden would have to go on trial, just as anyone else would! If he did it, then it would be proven and he would be sentenced. What's the problem with that?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Yes, as I said now three times, if the case can't be proven without the excluded confession, then the case would be thrown out as well. The confession is excluded. If the case can't be proven without the confession, then the case could be thrown out or the defendant found not guilty. What is not the law is that you can't charge someone with a crime if you don't Mirandize them first, which is the impression your first post gave.

Oh well we're basically just repeating each other so yeah. Even on the law shows you see people confessing to a crime and then interrogated. You can confess and then given your rights. Miranda v Arizona held that police must notify suspects of their rights prior to custodial interrogation. So you can't interrogate someone without letting them know what their rights are and if they want a lawyer or not. You have to always make sure the person knows what he/she is doing before taking their confession. They can easily lie later on so it's best to cover your bases.

 

[LittlePinky82]

The Japanese in Vietnam? Is that what you meant to say?

Anyway, I think we're getting pretty far afield. All I'm saying is pick one: criminal prosecution or war. I think 9/11 was an act of war, and we should be in war mode. The administration seems to disagree. They seem to be in a combination of stupid-go-after-the-wrong-guys mode and do-whatever-we-want-with-no-rule-of-law mode.

Whomever it was who did the torturing during Vietnam. It was the Japanese correct?
Well then that depends on each person's view of how a war is declared. Personally I view 9/11 as a federal crime since it was an attack on the federal building. The people who previously attacked the WTC are now in jail serving life sentences without parole. I say do the same to BinLadin. The problem with declaring war on AlQida is the fact that they are all over the world. Are you going to go to every country that has one member of AlQida and attack them? And this goes back to innocence until proven guilty. Terrorism is an act against the government by a person or group of people who want the government to do what they wish. Just because you have some members of any type of group doing terrorism doesn't mean the whole group is guilty. That's why we have a court room and our laws to determine if someone is or isn't. However I agree with your last point. I remember sometime in either 2005 or 2006 the CIA even closed down their unit that was tracking BinLadin. I was amazed at that! The only person I remember getting really angry about that and even mentioned it was John Kerry.