Miranda, Blowhards, and common sense...

I know that some will read this post, yawn, and moveon.  But it's one of those things that just irks me.

Miranda warnings.  The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1966 that if a person is IN CUSTODY and is BEING QUESTIONED about the crime in question...that person has to be warned that in America, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees, "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

It gets tedious and specific to "in custody" and "being questioned" - which boils down to a cop on a beat has to be a lawyer, only faster because it happens in real time.  If a person's rights were violated (not given the warnings) the remedy is - the statements can not be used against them.  Which 9/10 times means nothing.

Like all rules, there are exceptions.

The SCOTUS has said one of these exceptions is the "public safety exception."  The landmark case in this matter regarded an armed suspect fleeing from the police.  When he was caught, he was not armed.  A cop asked him, without giving Miranda warnings, words to the effect of, "Where is the gun? You don't want some kid to find it, and shoot themselves?" The court ruled that the safety concern caused by the missing gun outweighed the suspect's right to not incriminate himself.

What about terrorists?

THE SAME RULE APPLIES. 

Both rules.

Its news again because a Judge in the State of Washington threw out statements made by the suspect that tried to bomb the MLK Day Parade.

I read THIS ARTICLE and thought - so what?  Hopefully their case does not hang on his statement.

Then I read the last sentence in the article, "TPM noted the usual critics in the past seemed to be missing this time around, possibly because the suspect in the MLK bombing case was not a Muslim."

Which led me to THIS ARTICLE.

How does this become a LEFT vs RIGHT issue, and which side is a RIGHT person supposed to be on?

I'm on the RIGHT (far, far, don't tead on me, raise-your-own-chickens RIGHT)...which side would you think me on?

I'm on the side that says - 'we have a Constitution, we shouldn't have to remind people about it upon their arrest, and a person will be judged by a jury of their peers based on the evidence.'

The issue about Miranda and terrorists - was about a non-citizen flying into the United States with bomb, trying to blow up the plane.  That is an act of war.  The FBI can investigate it - but that does not mean it has to go to a Federal Court, and the Rules of Federal Court should NOT apply.

That may be why the "usual critics" are not sounding off...