5 votes

Can someone please explain this to me?

How does someone being mirandized endanger national security?

Additionally, does one not have those same rights regardless of whether or not they were read to them by law enforcement?

The only issue with not being mirandized that I can see is that some people may not know their rights (I'm NOT saying it's an acceptable thing to do).

Am I missing something here? By doing this are they trying to imply that you have no rights UNLESS they give them to you? Or is there another reason for it that I haven't figured out yet?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They want to torture the

They want to torture the suspects who are detained within the US under "enemy combatant". so, they are setting precedent here. He also was not obtained with a warrant, he is only a suspect. You aren't allowed to detain a suspect without either having a warrant or being told you can get a warrant. So he was detained under NDAA, which they claim does not require Miranda rights. does it make sense now?

they gradually want to move all criminal activity under the "enemy combatant", shooting someone will be considered terrorism, self defense will be terrorism, etc.

Its all baby-steps.

Our national security can't

Our national security can't be threatened. We have over 5,000 nukes that can be delivered anywhere in the world within one hour. Plus we got about a trillion dollars worth of military toys. There is no need to worry about our national security.

A flesh wound here and there should be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree

I was just wondering why they would make that claim (that mirandizing him could endanger us).

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

I'm sick of this sissy shit!

I'm sick of this sissy shit!

Joη's picture

It doesn't. Rights are natural & unrevocable

Many men may agree to disregard the rights of a few, and that is a peril of men.

It doesn't seem appropriate for the FBI to blithely erase bystanders' media of the event. "Only the guilty run", but they can erase evidence?

Are they thinking people will mislead themselves, as 4chan did, so that opportunity needs to be minimized? What forethought!

Strangely, it seems like they're taking care of a weak spot or vulnerability. I don't think that's exactly the case, but even Ron's said it before "why do they through their actions invite these conspiracies?"

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?