Idiot Linseed would consider a global-warming denier a terrorist.
Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 05/06/2010 7:44:13 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to allow the government to interrogate U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without warning them of their right to remain silent—a proposal that would dramatically rewrite the rules regarding suspects captured inside the United States.
“Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,” Graham said at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday.
“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.
Graham told POLITICO he is working on legislation that would redefine the so-called “public safety exemption” to Miranda warnings. Under current law, police can question a suspect to obtain admissible evidence without informing them of their rights if they believe that there is an “exigent danger” – like a ticking time bomb — that another crime is about to be committed.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
You have made abundantly clear that the left has so polluted our nation that even here, the Earl Warren court has it’s fans.
You still have not explained why it is the duty of cops to serve criminals as lawyers and need to tell them to shut up, or why you lefties did not discover that “right” during the first 180 years of America, before the activist agenda of the radical left during the Warren Court that Reagan so despised.
One can exercise one's rights regardless of Miranda. Or do you think your ability to exercise your rights depends on some employee of the state reciting those rights to you?
Whose responsibility is it for people to be informed of their rights. Is it your responsibility as a citizen to know your rights? Or is it the responsibility of an employee of the state to inform you of your rights? Just like ignorance of the law should not be deemed an excuse for violating the law, ignorance or your rights should not be deemed the fault of the state that you die not exert your rights.
[When I drive my car I’m expected to know all the laws pertinent to driving. Ignorence is no excuse. The cop stopping me does not read my “rights”.]
Driving infractions are not criminal violations.
(All of the senior GOP Senators leaders must go) they have stop the conservative movement for years
I’m sorry, the nuance eludes me.
But, to follow your logic, you probably think foreign terrorists should be read their “rights”, too.
Seems like things are supposed to be hard on law enforcement officers, and the accused are supposed to get as much help as possible. That has been our system from the beginning.
[But, to follow your logic, you probably think foreign terrorists should be read their “rights”, too.]
Absolutely not!
I can’t see how you get that from my post about civil traffic violations.
Care to hedge a guess as to where this came from?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Uber RINO Lindsey PingWhat does the 'right to remain silent' have to do with the Fifth Amendment, which says "No person ...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."?
(sarcasm on)I can completely see how the two are totally unrelated (sarcasm off).
The crux of the problem is that current US law mandates that all foreigners be granted the full protection of law while they are in US territory.
If, instead, we simply changed that so that US law protections only apply to US citizens, regardless of location... then foreign terrorists could be locked up indefinitely, or interrogated, without jeopardizing the Constitutional rights of US citizenry.
You missed the point, what does that have to do with a cop having to give you instructions on the Constitution when he picks you up for burglarizing a store at 2am?
Do you think the founding fathers and the American people simply overlooked that for 180 years, until the radically leftist Warren Court in 1966 added it to it’s list of leftist, activist, hidden meanings that they “discovered”?
If you are going to just keep making up straw dog arguments by willfully ignoring what people are saying and making up your own posts for them, then why bother pinging us at all, why just post to yourself?
You mean the same Earl Warren who as Atty. General of California instituted the plan to incarcerate AMERICAN CITIZENS in camps without ever being charged with a crime due to the simple fact that they had Asian Ancestry?
The same Earl Warren who gutted the concept of states rights as Chief Justice? Yeah, that's a real Libertarian Icon. </sarcasm>
Get help.
Look at who is defending the Warren court on this thread, and yes Earl Warren as a SC Justice was seen as a libertarian hero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.