Isn't it high time the principals in this matter got their sh*t together? Why is Obama dragging his feet? Why is Harper dragging his feet? Is anyone jumping in and taking charge? Is there no sympathy and compassion for Omar? From what I've read about him he had a very unsettled childhood, & through it I imagine he was left with a big void when it comes down to a sense of nationality. Whatever he was "guilty" of, he should never have been in the position in the first place. Is there any hope for this boy becoming a well adjusted, productive adult? I personally think everyone involved with this case has acted shamefully.
"As everyone knows by now, the suspected planners pf the 9/11 Incident will be brought to trial in a civilian federal court in New York City, a mere stone's throw from the now-vanished World Trade Center.
The American Civil Liberties Union is happy with that idea, for reasons on which one can only speculate.
If things go as planned and these terrorists actually do get tried under U.S. law as a ordinary criminal they will be set free. When arrested/captured these terrorists were not read the "Miranda Law" which is every criminals right to hear when first arrested.
MIRANDA LAW: A GUIDE TO INTERPRETATION AND EXCEPTIONS
"A bad set of rules is better than no rules at all" (Thomas Jefferson)
The foundations for Miranda v. Arizona (1966) were laid in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) which applied the privilege against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against self-incrimination. Because Malloy, or the privilege against self-incrimination, is a primary component of the 5th Amendment, and Escobedo, or the right to counsel, is a primary component of the 6th Amendment, Miranda, or Miranda Law, is usually referred to as "the marriage of the 5th and 6th Amendment." It is therefore not a simple 5th Amendment case nor a simple self-incrimination case. What it deals with are confessions and interrogations, two words that don't even appear in the 5th Amendment.
Miranda is a "bright line" rule (beyond which nobody should cross) intended to forever extinguish the use of COERCION but allowing PRESSURE. It was not intended, as the exclusionary rule was, to reform the police or improve society, but to simply draw the line on coercion, much like Brown v. Mississippi (1936) was intended to outlaw torture. It was not intended to eliminate interrogation, which is inherently stressful and necessarily involves pressure. The purpose of Miranda is to neutralize the distinct psychological disadvantage that suspects are under when dealing with police.
Confessions, prior to Miranda, were only required to meet the voluntariness test, a requirement that all confessions must be voluntary, an exercise of free will on the part of a suspect. This requirement was usually met if the suspect's physical, mental, and emotional condition was stable at the time of making a confession. Today, the voluntariness test and its totality-of-circumstances component continues to be used, but in our post-Miranda era, police must prove they read specific Miranda warnings and obtained an intelligent waiver. Miranda law is not offense-specific; it doesn't matter if the offense is a felony or misdemeanor.
Specific Miranda warnings include the following statements:
- 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 talk to a lawyer and have him present with you during questioning.
- If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.
Intelligent waiver:
- Do you understand each of these rights as I have explained them to you?
- Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?
There was much concern in the wake of Miranda over the exact wording of the above statements. Police often carried and read from little cards to avoid a favorite tactic of defense attorneys--embarrassing the officer on the stand in repeating the exact words from memory. Over the years, however, Miranda has been "eroded" somewhat (although the courts will not tolerate deliberately reckless departures from the exact wording), as in the case of Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) which held that the following words, although less than perfectly clear, were still acceptable:
- You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him or her with you during questioning. You have the right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.
A violation of Miranda law will result in immediate (and automatic) suppression of evidence, rendering whatever statements the suspect made to the police and any use the police made with those statements inadmissible in court. However, a violation of Miranda law, in itself, is not grounds for an acquittal nor a reversal of conviction. Two rules have been established in appellate procedure which are followed very strictly.
Miranda Law
In addition all information about how they were captured will be released to the court and news media thus revealing all information about agents involved. This happened once before when The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993. Bin Ladan had everything needed to destroy the U.S. intellegence network as soon as it was made public.
