Posted by
Brian Peters on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 6:00:23 PM
The more I keep hearing this story, the more I question - without a doubt - that the Obama Administration is straight out of our worst nightmare. Justice mans what they want it to mean, not what it really means and is meant for. I've tried doing some quick looking today (hard to do while trying to get work done as well) and get some background research on the Miranda Rights. In a nutshell, this is what Miranda Rights boil down to:
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when
informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a
set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
| “ |
...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. |
And the classic lines most people fortunately have heard via TV:
-
You have the right to remain silent.
-
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
-
You have the right to an attorney.
-
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you
Maybe, someone with a 'law degree'/background can add to this posting.....who is covered 'Constitutionally' to receive these 'Rights'??
The following from the story today:
Top Senate Republicans want answers from the man they believe
decided the FBI should read the suspected Christmas Day bomber his
Miranda rights: Attorney General Eric Holder.
“It appears that the decision not to thoroughly interrogate
Abdulmutallab was made by you or other senior officials in the
Department of Justice,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
wrote in a letter to Holder Wednesday. “We remain deeply troubled that
this paramount requirement of national security was ignored —or worse
yet, not recognized — due to the administration’s preoccupation with
reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights.”
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32073.html#ixzz0dr43hCyM
This 'suicide bomber', Abdul Mutallab, is a terrorist, undeniably. He is a citizen of Nigeria....not the United States. Abdul is not a member of any military, law enforcemnt agency of the Nation of Nigeria, which makes Abdul ineligible to fall under the Geneva Convention Rules in Conduct of War. Abdul is not a member of any other Nation's military apparatus/organizations.
Abdul Mutallab is not a citizen of the United States and has been clearly identified as a citizen of Nigeria.
Here's the big question, is it in the United States Constitution that the rules and laws of the U.S. Constitution apply to all people of the World? Or does the U.S. Constitution legally only cover and are bound to 'citizens' of the United States of America? It has to be one or the other...it is impossible to do both.
Miranda Rights were created to protect the citizens of the United States from self incrimination, they were not created by the United Nations, World Court, and approved by all Nation's to cover all people of the World. So how, where does any legal aspect of the Miranda Rights even apply to a terrorist???? Abdul can be questioned forever....he is a terrorist and has no 'Rights', other than any rights of humanity that mankind wishes to bestow upon him as a gesture of being humane towards the inhumane.