Supreme Court Blocks War Crime Tribunals at Gitmo!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
At least we now know we have two functioning branches of government.

What's the 2nd?

[MichaeltheGreat]

The judiciary. For the executive, malfunctioning still counts as functioning, since it's at least doing something.

[chequita guevara]

Which part of the executive is functioning aside from the military?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Once that arrest becomes custodial (a traffic stop is a technical arrest, since you're not free to drive off), then Miranda kicks in.

[quibble] Miranda is only necessary if there is going to be an interrogation[/quibble]

[GePap]

Yeah, why do people have such a distorted view of Miranda. The cops don;t hasve to read your miranda rights when they arrest you, only when they want to interrogate you...

Silly DD.

Oh, and to the Supremes!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
At least we now know we have two functioning branches of government.

I still only count one...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, and to the Supremes!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by GePap
Yeah, why do people have such a distorted view of Miranda. The cops don;t hasve to read your miranda rights when they arrest you, only when they want to interrogate you...

Miranda has two parts: right to remain silent and right to an attorney. Even if they aren't going to interrogate you, you still have the right to an attorney.

BTW; I've never heard of the cops arresting someone and not wanting to interrogate them.

You're under arrest..
But I'm so mad at you, I don't even want to talk to you

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


[quibble] Miranda is only necessary if there is going to be an interrogation[/quibble]

The trigger is actually custodial arrest. If you're a possible witness to a crime, and cops start asking you questions, there's no requirement to Mirandize if you're not a suspect and you are not arrested. If you happen to be the perp, or stupid enough to reveal your involvement in another crime, there's no evidentiary issue as to the admissibility of the interrogation until such time as you could reasonably be placed under custodial arrest as a criminal suspect. (in other words, the cops don't necessarily get a free pass to manipulate the system by not arresting you while you're running your mouth, but IIRC, that's still unsettled law as to exactly when a vocal witness who talks himself into becoming a suspect requires Mirandizing.

[Darius871]

Stupid question: will this decision apply to all GWoT prisoners or only those who are U.S. citizens/non-citizen residents? i.e. would a Yemeni who was captured/arrested/kidnapped/detained/whathaveyou in Pakistan and moved to Gitmo get a public trial under U.S. civilian law?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Miranda has two parts: right to remain silent and right to an attorney. Even if they aren't going to interrogate you, you still have the right to an attorney.

nope, that attorney right is only if they are going to question you. If they aren't going to question you, then the judge will be the first to inform of right to counsel at the initial hearing. No pertinent questions=no rights recitation necessary.

Originally posted by Zkribbler
BTW; I've never heard of the cops arresting someone and not wanting to interrogate them.

Really? Most small time crimes like Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Law Enforcement, Public Intoxication, Prostitution, etc are not going to have the cops need miranda. You only get interrogated if the crime doesn't occur in front of the police and/or they are looking for the defendant to fill in the evidentiary gaps.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The trigger is actually custodial arrest. If you're a possible witness to a crime, and cops start asking you questions, there's no requirement to Mirandize if you're not a suspect and you are not arrested. If you happen to be the perp, or stupid enough to reveal your involvement in another crime, there's no evidentiary issue as to the admissibility of the interrogation until such time as you could reasonably be placed under custodial arrest as a criminal suspect. (in other words, the cops don't necessarily get a free pass to manipulate the system by not arresting you while you're running your mouth, but IIRC, that's still unsettled law as to exactly when a vocal witness who talks himself into becoming a suspect requires Mirandizing.

Hmm, I mustn't of been clear due to my quoting of you. I intended: arrest + interrogation =miranda necessary. The trigger isn't the custodial arrest, its the interrogation after the arrest, hence my quibble with your earlier statement. You can arrest people all day long and miranda may not be implicated.

[chequita guevara]

Something very interesting I read today. If Article 3 applies to unlawful combatants, then Bush, et al, are guilty of war crimes because of how the detainees have been treated.

[Kuciwalker]

The constitution doesn't make war crimes.

[chequita guevara]

Article 3 of the Geneva Convetions, which is part of U.S. law.