In response to:


JiminGA Wrote: Apr 22, 2013 7:07 AM
"No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". The key word is "criminal". The bomber may not be tried in a criminal court, but instead be charged as an enemy combatant who has relinquished his citizenship by joining a foreign fighting group. No Miranda for him, right? But remember the recent decisions by our activist DOJ and POTUS.
Ribar2 Wrote: Apr 22, 2013 9:26 AM
Good observation. It would stand to reason that any information obtained from the "non-Mirandized" questioning would not be admissible in the "criminal" proceeding. That information would only be suitable for use in military court.
Texas Chris Wrote: Apr 22, 2013 7:28 AM
Miranda isn't only for citizens. "No person" means... Well... No person.

If he is being denied the freedom to leave custody, then he must be mirandized. If he can be held without it, then you or I could be as well.
kcrowley Wrote: Apr 22, 2013 7:59 AM
I agree, Texas, and find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with Feinstien. The 5th and 6th Ammendments stand. I insist this man's rights be upheld, because I insist on mine!

Suddenly, every cable news anchor, every pundit, every Sunday show guest, and every waiter in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia has become an expert on whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be informed of his Miranda rights.

Let's assume, for the moment, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has never watched a single episode of "Law & Order" in any of its manifestations and, thus, does not know he can ask for a lawyer - or refuse to answer any questions with a lawyer or without.

Just so I can catch up (I know you already know this), the whole Miranda thing stems from that...