Judge Napolitano: 'It's Dangerous to Talk of Suspending Suspect's Constitutional Libe


#1

We should not begin shredding the Bill of Rights. If you want to suspend his Fifth Amendment right, there will be no limit to whose rights you can suspend!


#2

There’s an obvious compromise position, it seems to me. Until the bomber is Mirandized, nothing he says can be used for purposes of self-incrimination; that is, to convict him of the crimes to which he is solved. But before he is Mirandized, allow him to be questioned about the possibility of a terror cell and such cell’s operations and past and future activities. Questioning of that sort strikes me as perfectly Constitutional, even when made of a U.S. citizen.


#3

Agree 100%. At this moment, however strong the evidence, he is only a suspect. And laws are meaningless if the government can choose to ignore them.


#4

Even if there is an unbelievable amount of evidence, until he gets his day in court he is innocent under the law until proven guilty. Once he is proven guilty he can be executed.

The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. We either follow it to the letter or we scrap it completely, can’t have it both ways.


#5

I think there is an important distinction between a crime and an act of war


#6

Napolotano is full of bull. And as a former judge, scares me where his utter lack of knowledge is concerned.

The Miranda states that anything you say CAN be held against you in a court of law.

The judicial system doesn’t NEED anything he has to say to put him in prison, or, better yet, invoke the death penalty. They already HAVE more than enough evidence to prosecute him.
There’s nothing he can or won’t say that would water down that indictment.

The Mirana has no bearing on this case. None. Zero. Zip. Nadda.

What’s scary is that a former judge doesn’t know that.


#7

[quote=“Jebby, post:4, topic:39177”]
Even if there is an unbelievable amount of evidence, until he gets his day in court he is innocent under the law until proven guilty. Once he is proven guilty he can be executed.

The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. We either follow it to the letter or we scrap it completely, can’t have it both ways.
[/quote]You’re misunderstaning somethng.
The Mirada reads that, "Anything you say CAN be held against you."
LE doesn’t NEED anything he has to say, as they already HAVE all the evidence they need to put him behind bars for the rest his life, or execute him. Which is hopeful, imo.

IOW, nothing he has to say will neither help, nor hinder, his case. So the Miranda ruling is a moot point.


#8

That doesn’t change that he has a right to have an attorney present during any questioning. Whether he wants to talk or not is not the issue here, the issue is that many are proposing denying him a right to an attorney and even a right to a trial.

He is an American citizen captured on American soil, he has the full protection of the Bill of Rights, regardless of what crime he (allegedly) has committed.


#9

This was not an act of war. This was murder and attempted murder. He is not a soldier. He should be tried like Timothy McVeigh was, and if found guilty (I think that is a foregone conclusion) be executed.


#10

[quote=“Jebby, post:9, topic:39177”]
This was not an act of war. This was murder and attempted murder. He is not a soldier. He should be tried like Timothy McVeigh was, and if found guilty (I think that is a foregone conclusion) be executed.
[/quote]Except he has ties to an organization that is, at present, at war with us. That makes him an enemy combatant. McVeigh did not.


#11

Right. He is a murder suspect in the custody of police. It’s pretty straightforward that rules regarding enemy combatants in wars do not apply to him. The administration made the correct, legal decision for once.


#12

And what ties are those?

And anyway, there are dozens of people serving sentences in federal prison for terrorism with ties to Islamic groups. There is absolutely no reason for this guy not to be tried in federal court. He is a US citizen, arrested on US soil by Boston PD and federal agents. He should be tried just as McVeigh was.

America is not a battlefield, we have a Constitution that needs to be upheld, even if we don’t like it.


#13

I support all the Bill of Rights. Somebody mentioned Miranda Rights, those are actually not in the Constitution.


#14

Yes and Nidal Hasan’s attack was just workplace violence.

Who was the intended victim, what was the motive? This wasnt a crime, it was an attack was on America with the intent to cause terror. That is an act of war.


#15

There is no such thing as “Miranda Rights” there is a Miranda warning, though which merely informs you of your 5th and 6th Amendment rights. Those rights, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, should be non-negotiable to any conservative. We either have them all, and we stand for them for ALL citizens, or we might as well let Barry and his ‘conservative’ buttbudies McCain and Graham wipe their a**es with the Constitution.


#16

No, Hasan is a murderer and has been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He was tried in a military court because he was a member of the armed forces.

Terrorism is a crime…

Why do you have such little faith in the Constitution and our judicial process?


#17

His attack was still ruled “workplace violence”

Why do you refuse to admit that America has been attacked by foreign interests?


#18

Technically it was. His workplace was the base and his actions did involve violence. That’s besides the point, though. He arrested, charged, and his trial will begin in May. Just like this suspect should be arrested and tried.

Where did I refuse to admit that? That also is besides the point. This was a criminal act of terrorism by a US citizen on US soil. He was apprehended by domestic law enforcement agents. The US is not a battlefield, and the suspect is a US citizen. The Bill of Rights applies in this case. He should be given a fair trial and if (more like when) found guilty should be executed for his crimes.

I’m sorry, but the Constitution is not negotiable. Either suspects have a right to a trial or we should just shred the Bill of Rights and start summary executions based on accusations.


#19

The runners at the Boston Marathon, obviously.

There has not yet been a trial, but I presume the motivation was political terrorism.

Do you realize terrorism and murder are both crimes?

Even if he was secretly an agent of some state (Russia, presumably?) his actions are still criminal and he is still a suspect, already in police custody, in an ongoing investigation by police and FBI. Everything about the case makes it appropriate to treat him like what he is, a police suspect. To declare him an “enemy combatant” on a “battlefield” would be a transparent, dishonest abuse of government authority.


#20

of course you would think that, you refuse to admit that attacks on the US are happening.

Where did I refuse to admit that? That also is besides the point. This was a criminal act of terrorism by a US citizen on US soil. He was apprehended by domestic law enforcement agents. The US is not a battlefield, and the suspect is a US citizen. The Bill of Rights applies in this case. He should be given a fair trial and if (more like when) found guilty should be executed for his crimes.

When you claimed it was just a normal crime. Note that one of the attackers was not a US citizen the other only a citizen for 6 months (he probably waited until after he became a citizen for the attack so people like you would defend his actions) and they both had ties to a foreign terrorist organization. So the younger brother joined into the older brothers foreign terrorist plot so he became an enemy combatant.