Originally Posted by Darth_Calo
In some cases, though, shouldn't the safety of the public be taken into consideration? For instance, according to some news outlets
, Dzhokhar claimed that after the Boston Marathon, he and his brother were going to head to Times Square in New York City, New York to detonate additional explosive devices. After that, who knows? The cops got him off the street and used the exception in the interest of Public safety to ensure that these two weren't funded by some larger terrorirst group. (Which he claims they were not; whether that is to be believed is another issue).
My point: sometimes there are extreme circumstances. In those instances, the rights of criminals should at least be suspended in the interest of protecting the lives of the general public. I am not advocating a police state. Far from that. I am advocating the authorities getting people like Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev off the streets and preventing people they may have been associated with from following in their footsteps and finishing what they started.
Also worth consideration: Was Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's citizenship valid? When becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, one must take an oath
, swearing loyalty to the United States. Detonating the bombs at the marathon with the expressed intent of maiming U.S. Citizens (and foreign nationals visiting to participate/watch) could be seen as an act of treason; it could also be argued (but proven? I am not so sure, admittedly) that when he took the oath, he didn't actually intend to live up to it.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Whether they are a citizen or not, anyone arrested here is allowed the same rights under Miranda. I am protesting not because they used the exemption, but the DoJ used it without even bothering to get permission to do so. Do you want the police
to decide whether they have the right to search your home, rather than having a judge make that determination?
As a simpler example, the US started monitoring phone and electronic communications between people here in the US, and to places overseas where terrorists are known to flourish, looking for ties to more terrorist attacks. Everyone complained because the only ones making that determination was the CIA and NCA (I.E. President Shrub) without recourse to either a judge or DoJ. If I were a cop and I put a wiretap on your phone, everything I collected would be inadmissible without a court order allowing me to do it.
Before you think of it, the president is not
legally allowed to make that determination. It is still something a judge can decide. Even the President is supposed to follow legal procedure. I edited the last line because President Wilson used the Sedition act of 1914, and the Sedition and Espionage Act that followed to have the Post Office
open mail enroute to people the government believed
were complaining about how Wilson's administration was handling things.